Is 4.25" the Perfect Hole Size?

[iacas]

I'm sure there's a heavy dose of familiarity influencing this, but I think 4.25" is about the perfect size. It's large enough to make a five or even ten-foot putt feel quite "makeable" while also making a 30-footer feel like you have to do something really well to make it.

If the hole was any smaller, it'd be really difficult to make putts from outside of three feet.

If it was any larger, five-footers would start to feel like tap-ins.

What's the perfect hole size, in your opinion, or did we accidentally achieve it?

P.S. 4.25/1.68 ~= 2.5.

 

[Hardspoon]

Impossible to say, because it's so ingrained...it's like asking if a football field should be 305 yards.  But, trying to imagine inventing the game from scratch, like you'd make up a game to play with your brothers in the backyard...I'd bet you'd make it a little bigger.  Maybe three golf ball diameters...so 5".

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Impossible to say, because it's so ingrained...it's like asking if a football field should be 305 yards.

That'd be quite the change!

[Patch]

4.25 is just fine by me. I have seen courses that ran special tournaments for youngsters where a 1' diameter circle was painted around the 4.25 hole. If the ball traveled through the 1' circle the ball was consider holed. In fact I can remember discussions where painting such a circle could be used to speed up play. 

[70sSanO]

Interesting question.  A basketball to rim is less than 2x, so 2.5 seems generous.  Never-the-less, I voted a bit larger.

What would be an interesting study would be to see if more putts are made with a 5" diameter hole "over time".  In theory the obvious answer is yes.  But I wonder if the amateur golfer fails to capitalize on the additional margin of error and eventually is not sinking putts significantly better.

I know from personal experience playing pool on a table with undersized pockets and then playing larger regulation pockets made it incredibly easy initially.  But over time I lost that edge.  Not sure if it was psychological or ???

John

Edited October 22, 2016 by 70sSanO

[bkuehn1952]

I like the balance between athleticism/power and finesse in golf.  Sometimes changes create unpredictable results. While one would expect a smaller hole to help the finesse player, a smaller hole might devalue putting & the short game because nobody would ever hole anything until 2-3 feet away.  And possibly a larger hole would help the finesse player with more hole outs on close shots.

At the end of the day, my innate conservatism says leave it alone.

[Archie Bunker]

Even more interesting would be to make the hole square instead of round. What do you think may happen? I would guess that a "lip out" would be just about impossible. But if you miss the center of the hole and go over the corner, there would be less of a chance that it would fall in. 

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

I'm sure there's a heavy dose of familiarity influencing this, but I think 4.25" is about the perfect size. It's large enough to make a five or even ten-foot putt feel quite "makeable" while also making a 30-footer feel like you have to do something really well to make it.

If the hole was any smaller, it'd be really difficult to make putts from outside of three feet.

If it was any larger, five-footers would start to feel like tap-ins.

What's the perfect hole size, in your opinion, or did we accidentally achieve it?

P.S. 4.25/1.68 ~= 2.5.

 

I like it for the reasons you stated. Putting shouldn't be easy even though you are closer to the hole.

[Hacker James]

I went with standard. In practice at home, I use the bell shaped end of a piece of grey PVC which is two inches inside diameter.

[iacas]

9 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

What would be an interesting study would be to see if more putts are made with a 5" diameter hole "over time".  In theory the obvious answer is yes.

The answer is definitely yes. No question.

3 hours ago, Archie Bunker said:

Even more interesting would be to make the hole square instead of round. What do you think may happen? I would guess that a "lip out" would be just about impossible. But if you miss the center of the hole and go over the corner, there would be less of a chance that it would fall in. 

A square hole is different sizes depending on the angle from which you're approaching it. That would be goofy.

[Missouri Swede]

I didn't vote (yet). I suspect that if the hole had always been some other specific size (e.g., 2x, 3x, 4x ball diameter; or 4 inches, 6 inches, etc.) I probably would have considered that to be correct and wouldn't give it a second thought, unless someone else had a different standard--like the standardizing of golf ball size a few decades ago.  

I also suspect that if there were no standard hole size, I would have considered that to be correct. After all, greens are all different sizes, configurations, and we consider that part of the game. Probably would be reflected in the slope/rating.  

Imagine: "What do you think of Rory's putt coming up here, Roger?" "I don't know, Jim: He's got a short putt here for birdie, but on this green they used a 3 inch hole today. Not like the fourth hole where they gave them a 6 inch target--that was easier despite the way the green tilts toward the creek.   And not like Oakmont last week, where they went with 5 inch holes on all 18 greens on Sunday to give the guys a lot more birdie opportunities."

So I suppose my answer is "No, because if it were larger or smaller, we would adjust--our scores (everyone's) would be lower or higher-- it would just be a "new normal."

Edited October 22, 2016 by Missouri Swede

[NJpatbee]

I think the hole size is fair and does not need to be changed.  Also, how many millions of rounds have been played with the current size hole?    To me it is like the narrow definition of "hazard" - I don't like it but it has been the rule since the R&A created them.. it would be like allowing 4 strikes for an out in baseball.

[natureboy]

To a certain extent, it is what it is. I expect better putters will still have better make percentages from each distance.

I think all the larger diameter hole would do is reduce average scores and move the 'gimme' line a bit further from the cup. Wouldn't reduce the premium on ballstriking.

Maybe the way to frame the question is to say what is the 'correct' distance at which the average scratch player or pro should make 50% of their putts, and how might that influence expectations for green size (would it increase the cost of maintenance and playing golf)? Any enjoyment from making more putts and scoring better would quickly be adjusted to. Just like how we are frustrated with a tiny delay in internet page loading vs. what it was in its infancy. 

Edited October 22, 2016 by natureboy

[newtogolf]

I'm torn because overall I agree with Erik's reasoning in his first post but I've played a lot of different courses these last two years where the greens weren't in great condition.  

The combination of the poorly maintained greens and current hole size made making a putt longer than 6' more about luck than skill.  On those types of courses I think a 5" hole might make it more fair. 

[shanksalot]

 It would never happen, but I would like to see two holes on each green. Obviously not close to each other. This may help to keep the greens in better shape and also speed up play. 

[No Mulligans]

I wouldn't want to see it change as I consider it kind of set in stone because of the historical stats/database/comparibility.

But I wish that it had always been larger.  The whole idea of putting a ball in a hole 400 yards away using a set of sticks... the hole being so small weights the last 1% of the distance (16 feet or so) way to high.  I wish the hole size had always been big enough for an 8 footer be about as easy as a 4 footer is at the 4.25'' hole size.

Why is the Golf Hole Size 4.25 Inches in Diameter?

http://golf.about.com/od/historyofgolf/f/holesize.htm

Quote

From the beginnings of golf into the late 19th century, the size of the holes on golf greens was not necessarily standard from golf course to golf course. But in new rules issued in 1891, the R&A determined that the hole size should be standard on golf courses everywhere. So the R&A discussed just what exactly that size should be.

The size they decided on was 4.25 inches in diameter. The reason is that the folks at Musselburgh (now a 9-hole municipal course on the Levenhall Links near Edinburgh, Scotland) had invented, in 1829, the first known hole-cutter.

 

That ancient hole-cutter is still in existence and is on display in the clubhouse at Royal Musselburgh, an 18-hole course in Prestonpans, Scotland. (That's where the Royal Musselburgh Golf Club that used to play at the 9-holer outside Edinburgh is now based.)

R&A Adopts 4.25-Inch Hole Size

That first hole-cutter utilized a cutting tool that was, you guessed it, 4.25 inches in diameter. The folks running the R&A apparently liked that size and so adopted it in their rules for 1891. And as was usually the case, the rest of the golf world followed in the footsteps of the R&A.

The exact reasons for why that first tool cut holes at the now-standard diameter are lost to history. But it was almost certainly a completely arbitrary thing, a notion supported by the story (perhaps apocryphal) that the tool was built from some excess pipe that was laying about the Musselburgh links. (That 9-hole Musselburgh links, by the way, was the site of six British Opens from 1874 to 1889.)

 

[tnull]

Good question.  It is the same as asking if the hoop diameter in basketball should be changed.  As someone who played high school ball and shot baskets starting when I was old enough to get the ball to a 10 ft rim, it is ingrained.  Smaller, such as at carnival games feels too small.  Bigger would be kinda weird.  I have putted on indoor training greens with smaller holes and it makes you concentrate more.  But I wouldn't want a smaller hole on the course.  So is bigger better?  Didn't they do a thing a while back where they made holes really big for beginners?  To make the game easier so more people would play?  The hole size is what it is and is kind of grandfathered in it's size.  Just my .02.

[woodzie264]

On 10/21/2016 at 11:35 PM, Hardspoon said:

Impossible to say, because it's so ingrained...it's like asking if a football field should be 305 yards.  But, trying to imagine inventing the game from scratch, like you'd make up a game to play with your brothers in the backyard...I'd bet you'd make it a little bigger.  Maybe three golf ball diameters...so 5".

Agreed- for no particular reason other than "Golf is Hard," I think the 3-ball diameter would have been my original standard had I created the game. But I didn't and have no real issue with it as it stands.