Great putting is just luck, why we should make the cup bigger.

[jshots]

Originally Posted by Stargaze

I made a par putt this weekend after hitting the ball into the bunker on my second shot.  I actually think there's a lot of room for error in golf...just not on the green.  Maybe in context, that's what this person was saying.

Yes well that is sort of a good way to put it. There is a tiny bit of room for error on the green, but not much.

So I think that there are enough things that we can't account for in putting from a distance say 15 feet, whether it is the way your eyes don't properly see the break due to an optical illusion or slight irregularity in the green that you can't really see or something else, there is enough that you can't account for in a 15 foot putt to throw a putt off line by that small amount that you miss it by. You could not have humanly possibly judged the putt any better but it still doesn't go in because of the things you can't account for.

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by jshots

Yes well that is sort of a good way to put it. There is a tiny bit of room for error on the green, but not much.

So I think that there are enough things that we can't account for in putting from a distance say 15 feet, whether it is the way your eyes don't properly see the break due to an optical illusion or slight irregularity in the green that you can't really see or something else, there is enough that you can't account for in a 15 foot putt to throw a putt off line by that small amount that you miss it by. You could not have humanly possibly judged the putt any better but it still doesn't go in because of the things you can't account for.

I'm not sure what you are referring to in regards to "something that you cannot account for in a 15 foot putt".

If there is something in your line that is able to be moved away, such as a leaf, rock, twig, etc. - you can move it. Aside from there, there is nothing that you are not controlling in your putt. You determine your line, you determine your stroke, you determine your stance and grip, you determine your approach to the putt, you determine the speed of the putt while considering the break and overall line, etc.

There is virtually nothing that you do not control in your putt. If you don't hit the right line, speed, stroke, or read the break properly.. that is all human error. Human error will never be eliminated, but it can be drastically reduced through practice.

You can't say that you're missing 10 footers or compare your putting ability to a pro. A professional player on the tour, within reason (say top 100 to set a parameter) is insanely accurate and successful when putting these distances.

The faults that you are claiming boil down to practice, and yes - the professionals are putting in many hours a week at putting. The amateur golfer usually does not have that amount of time to dedicate, obviously, and that is why the professional is light years ahead of the amateur with regard to putting.

It's great that you're confident and have that little ego going, and I mean that - but you can't possibly imagine yourself on the same plane as a PGA Tour player when it comes to putting unless you are on tour, played the courses that they have played in the conditions that they were in, etc.

I'm not a person that is saying these guys are walking gods or anything, because raw talent and natural god given ability is a major plus if you have it. The fact is that 99% of us do not have it and we would require ungodly hours of practice to compete at their level.

With this long story being said, I am highly against opening the hole up to a larger diameter. Again, you get out what you put in . In the quality of life that you live, in relationships, in your job, in sports that you play, etc. Put in the work and the rewards will come - don't look for any assistance or easy outs.

The game's difficulty as it stands is what helps us to actually appreciate the skill level of the professionals, as well as the amount of dedication and hard work that they put in to be where they are at.

[newtogolf]

You keep referring to luck in putting, when I believe luck is move apparent in other parts of the game.  Consider;

You're 100 yards out, wind is calm, you hit a perfect shot at the stick, as the ball leaves your club, a gust of wind comes and carries your ball right into the bunker...bad luck.  Let's get rid of bunkers, wind, water hazards, rough and awkward lies too.  Or we could skip the course and just join darksun for a round on his simulator.

Sarcasm aside I get what you're trying to do, make the game easier for people.  The reality is putting is the most natural of all the clubs in golf to hit, that's why kids play putt putt golf.  Swinging a driver, wood, iron and wedge takes skill.  I doubt someone will quit the game because of putting (yips aside)  but I know a few that did cause they couldn't hit their other clubs consistently.

[jshots]

Originally Posted by Spyder

If there is something in your line that is able to be moved away, such as a leaf, rock, twig, etc. - you can move it. Aside from there, there is nothing that you are not controlling in your putt. You determine your line, you determine your stroke, you determine your stance and grip, you determine your approach to the putt, you determine the speed of the putt while considering the break and overall line, etc.

There is virtually nothing that you do not control in your putt. If you don't hit the right line, speed, stroke, or read the break properly.. that is all human error. Human error will never be eliminated, but it can be drastically reduced through practice.

You can't say that you're missing 10 footers or compare your putting ability to a pro. A professional player on the tour, within reason (say top 100 to set a parameter) is insanely accurate and successful when putting these distances.

The faults that you are claiming boil down to practice, and yes - the professionals are putting in many hours a week at putting. The amateur golfer usually does not have that amount of time to dedicate, obviously, and that is why the professional is light years ahead of the amateur with regard to putting.

It's great that you're confident and have that little ego going, and I mean that - but you can't possibly imagine yourself on the same plane as a PGA Tour player when it comes to putting unless you are on tour, played the courses that they have played in the conditions that they were in, etc.

I'm not a person that is saying these guys are walking gods or anything, because raw talent and natural god given ability is a major plus if you have it. The fact is that 99% of us do not have it and we would require ungodly hours of practice to compete at their level.

I don't compare myself to a Tour pro at all lol. I'm just saying that I'm a decent putter at my handicap and that I believe there is only so much that you can put in to putting to get sizeable results and that even if you can put ungodly hours of practice into your game, there is still something you can't see that causes you to miss. I play one one course where the greens are in fantastic condition, but even on those on a 20 foot putt there are things within a putt that i think could affect the ball that you would have to sit and study the put closely for a long time to find all of them. It sounds like you disagree with this.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

You keep referring to luck in putting, when I believe luck is move apparent in other parts of the game.  Consider;

You're 100 yards out, wind is calm, you hit a perfect shot at the stick, as the ball leaves your club, a gust of wind comes and carries your ball right into the bunker...bad luck.  Let's get rid of bunkers, wind, water hazards, rough and awkward lies too.  Or we could skip the course and just join darksun for a round on his simulator.

Sarcasm aside I get what you're trying to do, make the game easier for people.  The reality is putting is the most natural of all the clubs in golf to hit, that's why kids play putt putt golf.  Swinging a driver, wood, iron and wedge takes skill.  I doubt someone will quit the game because of putting (yips aside)  but I know a few that did cause they couldn't hit their other clubs consistently.

Oh I would definitely agree that there is much more luck involved in the longer game, but there is a lot more room for error as well even with the bunkers/water. Lol at the simulator idea.

I honestly think there is more too it than simply making it easier though. It comes down to making it fair... for everyone. I just think there is enough that you can't account for in a long putt that could push it off course enough to miss with the small hole. IDK though... I could easily be incorrect. Thats why i made this thread. It seems everyone else is confident that there is nothing in a putt that is undetectable that would cause some randomness to a persons misses. I said I would love to see some study on this kind of stuff. It would be interesting.

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by jshots

I don't compare myself to a Tour pro at all lol. I'm just saying that I'm a decent putter at my handicap and that I believe there is only so much that you can put in to putting to get sizeable results and that even if you can put ungodly hours of practice into your game, there is still something you can't see that causes you to miss. I play one one course where the greens are in fantastic condition, but even on those on a 20 foot putt there are things within a putt that i think could affect the ball that you would have to sit and study the put closely for a long time to find all of them. It sounds like you disagree with this.

Oh I would definitely agree that there is much more luck involved in the longer game, but there is a lot more room for error as well even with the bunkers/water. Lol at the simulator idea.

I honestly think there is more too it than simply making it easier though. It comes down to making it fair... for everyone. I just think there is enough that you can't account for in a long putt that could push it off course enough to miss with the small hole. IDK though... I could easily be incorrect. Thats why i made this thread. It seems everyone else is confident that there is nothing in a putt that is undetectable that would cause some randomness to a persons misses. I said I would love to see some study on this kind of stuff. It would be interesting.

Well I only disagree because you approach the putt as an entire putt, and anything that you miss is an error on your part (our parts as golfers). That is what I'm saying. I didn't mean that you are referring to yourself as being on the same level as a pro in that type of concept.

Is what I'm saying is, we can't make the game easier so that we can be on the same level with a professional when we're not and we do not put in the time to be.

A 20 foot putt, even pros will often times line up a 2 putt given the circumstances (ie: a championship/win is not on the line, they're capable of making Par or Birdie by doing so, etc.). An amateur golfer should not be upset about missing 15 or 20 foot putts by any means and the only way to improve on them is to practice.

[Chief Broom]

Interesting thread.

The argument as I see it is what reasons there might be for making the game easier.  As was said earlier whatever hypothetical changes that could be made to the cup would effect everyone equally, so in balance one's ability to score compared to everyone else's wouldn't change.  Certainly scores would drop with a larger cup but again we would see this drop across the board, so ultimately individual skill would still be accurately reflected by score.  So the question becomes is there a valid reason to make the game easier for everyone?

There are reasons for making golf easier.  A primary reason people stop playing golf has been shown to be frustration due to a lack of improvement.  So making the game easier would help to elevate that problem.  And in fact we are seeing initiatives by golf's organizing bodies such as "tee it forward" and experiments with larger cup sizes to do just that.  So those of you in this thread dismissing the OP's point are in fact in disagreement with some of golf's primary decision makers and course owners who would welcome any added business they might receive due to people realizing they could shoot lower scores.  Not that I think this disagreement is wrong, but that the people who make golf their business see a problem with the game's difficulty.  Ironically though those same decision makers routinely spend much more time worrying about how to make the game harder for the very best players of the game!  So there are also valid reasons for if not making the game harder at least making sure that technology doesn't overpower the natural limitations imperfect golfers have when playing.

I'm a little surprised by some of the reactions in this thread, but I have to admit it's true that one of golf's greatest appeals is it's inherent difficulty.  To excel at the game as it exists today is an accomplishment, and even though changes made would still allow for score to be an accurate reflection of individual skill level, there would be a natural adjustment to everyone's expectations of the game.  Breaking 70 with a 6" cup would not equate to doing so with a 4.25" one, and therein lies the rub.

[Spyder]

I see this as making the bowling pins bigger for amateur/league bowlers. Your 300 that you throw the very next season would be ridiculed by all those who have accomplished the feat before you.

Such as in Golf with the Ace, Eagle, holing out from the fairway, Breaking 70, 80 or 90, etc. It will cause just as much bad as it would good.

Golf's legacy rests within the difficulty of the game in my opinion. I don't want to hole out from 20 yards and think that the larger hole had something to do with it. When I go out, I think of the legends of the game and it definitely raises my appreciation for professionals and the work that they put in. Do I feel bad, or can I side with, the weekend hacker? No, absolutely not. They are the weekend hacker because they may get out once or twice a month.

Don't drop the difficulty of a sport to bring in more business. If the game is losing players, find other ways to bring them in. I'll have you know that I know more golfers that quit, or took a break from golf, due to the price and not the difficulty. Especially in this economy! Most of the courses near me are right around $40 for 18, or more. We have maybe 2 courses where $30 will buy you 18 with a cart and a drink/hot dog within 20 miles of my home and those courses are always more crowded than the "prestige" courses where $50 will only get you on your cart and nothing more.

There's obviously more that can be done by the "meeting of the minds" in terms of marketing golf better and bringing back/bringing in consumers and viewers. I am a strong believer that the difficulty of the game is not the main culprit though.

[newtogolf]

I think it's an interesting thread as well.  I am sure as a 21 handicap I approach putting differently from you at 7.5.  When I have a long putt, my thought process isn't to put it into the hole it's to get it close enough that I will hole it on my 2nd shot and not 3 putt.  My margin for error is higher than yours and my expectations are most likely lower.  I can accept not making a 20 foot putt at my current skill level.  What I get frustrated by is missing a 20 foot putt by 8 feet and leaving myself a tough 2nd putt.

In my case the larger hole isn't likely to help me or change my approach to the game.  I have 21 strokes to make mistakes with, you only have 7.5 so in that sense a lipout or near miss is more frustrating for you and I can see the allure of a larger hole.   Ultimately what attracted me to golf is it's a game I can play for many years and presents a challenge that with enough proper instruction, practice and perseverance I can achieve consistent improvement.  In that light I prefer to keep the difficulty level where it is and work to improve.

Originally Posted by jshots

Oh I would definitely agree that there is much more luck involved in the longer game, but there is a lot more room for error as well even with the bunkers/water. Lol at the simulator idea.

I honestly think there is more too it than simply making it easier though. It comes down to making it fair... for everyone. I just think there is enough that you can't account for in a long putt that could push it off course enough to miss with the small hole. IDK though... I could easily be incorrect. Thats why i made this thread. It seems everyone else is confident that there is nothing in a putt that is undetectable that would cause some randomness to a persons misses. I said I would love to see some study on this kind of stuff. It would be interesting.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker

JSHOTS

I kind of get where your coming from with the "it will make the game more fun" stand point. But what you mean is, we would all be a little more successful putting, so we would score better, and have a better time.

You can say this for many sports such as snooker, you ever played? It is stupidly hard, but you can't complain and say "they should make the pockets bigger because I made one great shot on the red, but then missed an easy black"

Its just a part of the game which has a tiny margin for error, when you drive a ball off the tee, you can hit a huge space in comparison and consider it a successful shot, same with an approach, you hit a circle 5ft around the hole, and you consider that successful.

Someone made a good thread about how "In golf you have to play perfect every shot"

You are right about snooker - it's insanely difficult.  That huge table, with those smaller balls and tiny little pockets.  Then they go and round the corners of the cushions at the holes and talk about lip outs..... You either hit the cue ball, the object ball and the pocket perfectly or it doesn't go in.  Back when I was in practice I loved snooker because it was the best challenge a pool player could find.  10 foot putts are simple by comparison.  For me, reading a 10 foot putt with 18 inches of break correctly and canning it is the same sort of challenge, and I get a fantastic rush from it.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I think it's an interesting thread as well.  I am sure as a 21 handicap I approach putting differently from you at 7.5.  When I have a long putt, my thought process isn't to put it into the hole it's to get it close enough that I will hole it on my 2nd shot and not 3 putt.  My margin for error is higher than yours and my expectations are most likely lower.  I can accept not making a 20 foot putt at my current skill level.  What I get frustrated by is missing a 20 foot putt by 8 feet and leaving myself a tough 2nd putt.

In my case the larger hole isn't likely to help me or change my approach to the game.  I have 21 strokes to make mistakes with, you only have 7.5 so in that sense a lipout or near miss is more frustrating for you and I can see the allure of a larger hole.   Ultimately what attracted me to golf is it's a game I can play for many years and presents a challenge that with enough proper instruction, practice and perseverance I can achieve consistent improvement.  In that light I prefer to keep the difficulty level where it is and work to improve.

Work on your short game and on keeping out of the worst trouble with good course management and you can shave 6 or 7 strokes off your handicap in a hurry.  My game tee to green is worthy of a bogey golfer.  It's my complete turnabout near the green that keeps me in the 12-13 range, and once got me down to 9.

[newtogolf]

Thanks Fourputt, I had some serious swing issues I had to work out but the swing is coming along.  I do need to improve my course management, I have too many Phil M. thoughts on how to approach a shot but don't have his swing to back it up yet.  I've been spending a good part of my practice time pitching and chipping which I had dedicated no time to given the swing issues I had earlier in the year.  I'm starting to reap some of the benefits but posts like yours help to reinforce that's the right track for me.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Work on your short game and on keeping out of the worst trouble with good course management and you can shave 6 or 7 strokes off your handicap in a hurry.  My game tee to green is worthy of a bogey golfer.  It's my complete turnabout near the green that keeps me in the 12-13 range, and once got me down to 9.

[ApocG10]

Originally Posted by jshots

I don't compare myself to a Tour pro at all lol. I'm just saying that I'm a decent putter at my handicap and that I believe there is only so much that you can put in to putting to get sizeable results and that even if you can put ungodly hours of practice into your game, there is still something you can't see that causes you to miss. I play one one course where the greens are in fantastic condition, but even on those on a 20 foot putt there are things within a putt that i think could affect the ball that you would have to sit and study the put closely for a long time to find all of them. It sounds like you disagree with this.

Oh I would definitely agree that there is much more luck involved in the longer game, but there is a lot more room for error as well even with the bunkers/water. Lol at the simulator idea.

I honestly think there is more too it than simply making it easier though. It comes down to making it fair... for everyone. I just think there is enough that you can't account for in a long putt that could push it off course enough to miss with the small hole. IDK though... I could easily be incorrect. Thats why i made this thread. It seems everyone else is confident that there is nothing in a putt that is undetectable that would cause some randomness to a persons misses. I said I would love to see some study on this kind of stuff. It would be interesting.

Maybe i'm the wrong person to ask then, because I do not, at all, believe in luck. Every consequence is the direct result of an action. I don't consider a bounce off a tree or a sprinkler head to be luck. It is the direct result of a very specific set of elements, movements, and circumstances. Everything can be explained.

I do understand the IDEA of luck in regard of the elements. One group has 17 nice holes, and storm comes up on 18, next guy plays 18 in the pouring rain. But those are the elements. And playing in them requires a whole new set of movements and circumstances, causing every result. i.e. these movements, circumstances, and elements are exactly what I study every day at work. The movement of the human body desired to have the greatest effect for every athletic endeavor. Kinesiology.

Like I said, I understand what you call luck, but I see it as a scientific efficiency in what you are doing. Every force on the ball can be measured. Every change in contact can be measured, right down to the difference in friction between a wet/dry ball and club face. That is why Trackman is so accurate, and so important. Within ten (probably less) years, we will be able to track these things easily with compact, mobile equipment that will give us more data than we will know what do with on our swing and body movements, and you will be able to check it all between swings on the course. Sports sciences need these things to come for the progression of competetive sport. The more numbers we have, the faster, better, and more efficient athletes we will have. And it is all due to practice blended with science. What we know today, just in golf, let alone all sport, would blow the minds of professionals playing 40 years ago. And now we are to the point where the changes are small, minute, exact changes, producing exact results. Its why guys like Tiger look for perfection in their swing, because the data is out there, and they know better IS possible.

Like I said, within ten years, we will have devices the size of phones that will measure everything we do, as well as topography. It will even read putts you've made, the exact path and 3d model of your stroke, and tell you where you would have had to start, as well as what speed, to have made the putt. You may think im crazy, and that is fine, but its not as far off as you think. With home setups (although basic) like Microsofts Kinect, its just a matter of time before the tecnology is shrunk and perfected.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by ApocG10

Maybe i'm the wrong person to ask then, because I do not, at all, believe in luck. Every consequence is the direct result of an action. I don't consider a bounce off a tree or a sprinkler head to be luck. It is the direct result of a very specific set of elements, movements, and circumstances. Everything can be explained.

I do understand the IDEA of luck in regard of the elements. One group has 17 nice holes, and storm comes up on 18, next guy plays 18 in the pouring rain. But those are the elements. And playing in them requires a whole new set of movements and circumstances, causing every result. i.e. these movements, circumstances, and elements are exactly what I study every day at work. The movement of the human body desired to have the greatest effect for every athletic endeavor. Kinesiology.

Like I said, I understand what you call luck, but I see it as a scientific efficiency in what you are doing. Every force on the ball can be measured. Every change in contact can be measured, right down to the difference in friction between a wet/dry ball and club face. That is why Trackman is so accurate, and so important. Within ten (probably less) years, we will be able to track these things easily with compact, mobile equipment that will give us more data than we will know what do with on our swing and body movements, and you will be able to check it all between swings on the course. Sports sciences need these things to come for the progression of competetive sport. The more numbers we have, the faster, better, and more efficient athletes we will have. And it is all due to practice blended with science. What we know today, just in golf, let alone all sport, would blow the minds of professionals playing 40 years ago. And now we are to the point where the changes are small, minute, exact changes, producing exact results. Its why guys like Tiger look for perfection in their swing, because the data is out there, and they know better IS possible.

Like I said, within ten years, we will have devices the size of phones that will measure everything we do, as well as topography. It will even read putts you've made, the exact path and 3d model of your stroke, and tell you where you would have had to start, as well as what speed, to have made the putt. You may think im crazy, and that is fine, but its not as far off as you think. With home setups (although basic) like Microsofts Kinect, its just a matter of time before the tecnology is shrunk and perfected.

While you are technically correct regarding luck and physics, from a practically standpoint, I think you are using too narrow a definition of luck.  There is luck in golf!  I don`t know of any golfer good enough to intentionally try to hit or miss a sprinkler head on a full shot with 100% of players basically ignoring them.  If a sprinkler head affects a player`s full shot positively or negatively, then this is good or bad "luck" that has nothing to do with the players skill (but can be explained with physics as you point out).

As far as the OP goes, I think widening the hole will lessen the scoring gap (skill premium) between skilled and non-skilled putters at certain distances while increasing the gap at other distances.  i.e. say a really skilled putter makes 95% of his 4 footers and a really unskilled putter makes 50%.  Widening the hole might increase the make rate for the skilled putter to 98% while the unskilled putter might see his make rate go up to 75%.  OTOH, from 12 feet, the really skilled putter might see his make rate go from 40 to 60% by widening the hole while the unskilled putter may only see his increase from 10 to 15%.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

I played with a guy today who brought up that holes should be bigger but it doesn't help someone who leaves a 25ft putt 8ft short. A good putter on a bad day misses by inches and a bad putter misses by feet almost every round. I think that making the hole bigger would make actually open up a bigger gap between good players and bad players. It doesn't help level the playing field but it would most likely make scores slightly lower. I guess I just don't see a point to it

They tried larger holes with some PGA Tour players back in the day (around the Ben Hogan era, so, mid- to early-50s IIRC).

Know what they found?

The better putters putted even better. The poor putters putted a little better, too.

Better putters separated themselves, not by a LOT, but by a little.

I'll respond to a few things here, but I'll say I think the idea of making the hole 6 or 7" wide is stupid. At 6" or 7", not only will people make more putts from ten feet, but they'll virtually never fear three-putts because you can ram a putt eight feet past the hole and be reasonably confident you can make it coming back. Stupid. You'll worry less about your short game for the same reason, and you'll fly at more flags for the hopes of an easy ten footer knowing how easy it will be to get up and down if you fail to stick it close. The entire strategy of the game will shift dramatically.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/46450/putting-capture-speed

Originally Posted by jshots

So we should stick with 4.25" just for the sake of tradition? That is ridiculous.

Uhm, it's a better reason than the ones you've given for changing it, especially when you consider that you'd no longer be able to compare putting or golf itself to the former iteration. Again, the strategy would change entirely.

A 4.25" hole is 14.2 square inches.

A 6" hole is 28.3 square inches.

Yeah.

Originally Posted by jshots

So it was arbitrary but why should it be when we could improve competition by increasing the size of the cup?

I must have missed the post you made proving that it would "improve competition." The golf I play and watch seems to be awfully competitive to me.

Originally Posted by jshots

How is it illogical to make putts easier? It would make a bad putter lose more strokes for bad putting compared to the field. How does it make sense that whether you land at 10 feet, or you land and 50 feet, you are more than likely going to 2 putt? Players aren't typically rewarded for doing anything other than sticking it within 8 feet of the pin. But arguably many shots that land further than 8 feet are also great shots that deserve more reward than they are given.

a) A player will take landing at 10 feet (they make 38% of those and three-putt 0.7%) over 50 feet (they make 3% and three-putt 16%) EVERY day of the week. http://thesandtrap.com/t/51757/pga-tour-putts-gained-make-percentage-stats Don't be silly.

b) No, they're rewarded for making tricky putts that others aren't likely to hole. Brandt Snedeker was making them from everywhere and if he had continued, he'd be the Champion Golfer of the Year.

c) No, arguably, they're not a better shot than one that's eight feet away. A twelve-footer up the hill might be a better shot than a slippery down-hill eight-footer, but the putting stats would bear that out with a higher make percentage and a lower three-putt percentage. A good shot is one that makes the putt easier and a good putt is one that either goes in or makes the next putt easier. A good shot in general is one that makes the next shot easier (if it doesn't complete the hole by going in).

Originally Posted by jshots

It would make the game more fun, it would make putting more fun. It would make putting more fun to watch on TV. I personally consider anything inside 20 feet on an approach a good shot. Not just for me, but for anybody no matter the skill level. But from 15-20 feet, it's rare that someone is rewarded with a birdie.

Depends on your definition of rare, I guess. Make percentages from 15 feet are 22%. More than one in five.

Plus it would not be more fun to me. I'd know it was easier, and I have fun overcoming a challenge. Six-footers with a six-inch hole would be tap-ins. Holing a 30-footer would no longer be a rush - you'd have to make it from 50 or 60 feet to feel you'd done as well as you currently do from 30. That doesn't sound very fun.

Originally Posted by jshots

So a 6 inch holes automatically makes it a whole different game?

Yes. You don't seem to appreciate the ramifications it would make to every phase of the game, including the strategic element of risk vs. reward at going for some tough pin positions.

[The Recreational Golfer]

Paul Runyan addressed this issue in his book, The Short Way to Lower Scoring . He wrote about the time Gene Sarazen convinced the directors of the 1934 Florida Year-Round Open to enlarge the hole to eight inches in diameter. His idea was to reduce the effect of putting on scoring and give good shot-makers the advantage he felt they deserved. Runyan figured that while less-skilled putters would make more putts, the better putters would too, and the relationship would not change. He planned not to change his putting strategy one bit.

Runyan won by eleven strokes and did not three-putt one green. The man who finished second three-putted only once. Amongst the rest of the field there were three-putts galore. Olin Dutra four-putted twice, and Wild Bill Melhorn three-putted 13 times. Sarazen three-putted seven times.

End of experiment.

[jshots]

Originally Posted by iacas

The better putters putted even better. The poor putters putted a little better, too.

Better putters separated themselves, not by a LOT, but by a little.

Well that is part of the goal of this idea. How big were the cups increased?

Originally Posted by iacas

http://thesandtrap.com/t/46450/putting-capture-speed

Uhm, it's a better reason than the ones you've given for changing it, especially when you consider that you'd no longer be able to compare putting or golf itself to the former iteration. Again, the strategy would change entirely.

A 4.25" hole is 14.2 square inches.

A 6" hole is 28.3 square inches.

So maybe not 6 inches. What about 5.5 or somewhere in there. I'm looking for the happy medium that separates good and bad putters, and still allows for more error in a putt (which I think is often beyond the control of the player), without making it so putts are unmissable. What about a redesigned cup that had a curved rim around the top that would allow putts with good speed to drop while still letting too quick of putts lip out. Maybe the happy medium is 4.25.

Originally Posted by iacas

a) A player will take landing at 10 feet (they make 38% of those and three-putt 0.7%) over 50 feet (they make 3% and three-putt 16%) EVERY day of the week. http://thesandtrap.com/t/51757/pga-tour-putts-gained-make-percentage-stats Don't be silly.

b) No, they're rewarded for making tricky putts that others aren't likely to hole. Brandt Snedeker was making them from everywhere and if he had continued, he'd be the Champion Golfer of the Year.

c) No, arguably, they're not a better shot than one that's eight feet away. A twelve-footer up the hill might be a better shot than a slippery down-hill eight-footer, but the putting stats would bear that out with a higher make percentage and a lower three-putt percentage. A good shot is one that makes the putt easier and a good putt is one that either goes in or makes the next putt easier. A good shot in general is one that makes the next shot easier (if it doesn't complete the hole by going in).

a) Yeah obviously someone will take a 10 footer over a 50 footer and a 15 footer over a similar 17 footer, but more often than not, the result is the same, 2 putts.

b) This gets into the idea that they're getting rewarded for good fortune. What do you think of what I said that there is more to a putt than a human can account for (enough to miss) and what do you think is the factor when someone catches fire and holes a bunch of putts like Snedeker was doing? Is it really just that he is all of a sudden reading putts better. Why didn't he continue to make them?

Originally Posted by iacas

Plus it would not be more fun to me. I'd know it was easier, and I have fun overcoming a challenge. Six-footers with a six-inch hole would be tap-ins. Holing a 30-footer would no longer be a rush - you'd have to make it from 50 or 60 feet to feel you'd done as well as you currently do from 30. That doesn't sound very fun.

I agree with the overcoming of a challenge thing, and certainly having played cups the way they are, it would not be as great to hole out from far away. But with the right increase in size, just because it wasn't as great wouldn't mean that it wasn't still great.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by jshots

So maybe not 6 inches. What about 5.5 or somewhere in there.

No thanks.

Originally Posted by jshots

I'm looking for the happy medium that separates good and bad putters, and still allows for more error in a putt (which I think is often beyond the control of the player), without making it so putts are unmissable.

4.25" is pretty much ideal in my opinion.

The skill is not necessarily in making more putts, but in two-putting more frequently. One of the most important skills is in making the 8-10 footers.

The hole is the perfect size.

Originally Posted by jshots

What about a redesigned cup that had a curved rim around the top that would allow putts with good speed to drop while still letting too quick of putts lip out.

We a good hole size that does that already. See the capture speed thread.

Originally Posted by jshots

a) Yeah obviously someone will take a 10 footer over a 50 footer and a 15 footer over a similar 17 footer, but more often than not, the result is the same, 2 putts.

Uhm...

Stroke average from 10 feet is 1.626 and from 50 feet is 2.135. That's over half a stroke difference. It might be true that "more often than not" the result is a two-putt (61% and 81%) but the other 39 and 19% matter quite a bit.

Originally Posted by jshots

b) This gets into the idea that they're getting rewarded for good fortune. What do you think of what I said that there is more to a putt than a human can account for (enough to miss) and what do you think is the factor when someone catches fire and holes a bunch of putts like Snedeker was doing? Is it really just that he is all of a sudden reading putts better. Why didn't he continue to make them?

He gave the putts a good chance of going in. There's still luck, but a putt that misses the hole by two inches isn't going in. Snedeker was able to put the ball within a small area in which it was likely that he'd make the putt. Others weren't.

That's a skill. It's not like the margin for error is 10% (or even 1%) and from there on out it's just luck or not. Nope. If that were the case good putters wouldn't separate themselves as they are able to do. They can, thus proving that over four rounds or a thousand rounds they can separate themselves because of their SKILL.

[onesome]

A 6" hole would give more than 1 ball width to make a putt versus the current cup.

ball = 1.680"

6.0" -4.250= 1.750

That would be huge.

[Righty to Lefty]

Originally Posted by onesome

A 6" hole would give more than 1 ball width to make a putt versus the current cup.

ball = 1.680"

6.0" -4.250= 1.750

That would be huge.

I was just about to say that....the standard hole is only 4.25 inches wide with perfect speed control.  So even if the cup were increased the effective useable area of the hole will still depend on the speed control of the person putting.  To me this is to the advantage of the better putter because a better putter not only has better distance control but a better putter is much more adept at running the ball close to the hole even on misses.  A poor putter is still going to have the same distance control problems leaving putts well shot or running them by too far.

Like I already said though....I am all for the "no brainer" zone of putting to be moved from somewhere around 2 feet to more like 4 feet because I just feel like grinding over 3 foot putts is ridiculous when the start of the hole was over 400 yards away.  I absolutely believe that a 3 foot putt should not hold the same importance as an approach shot.