Is 4.25" the Perfect Hole Size?

[iacas]

  On 10/23/2016 at 1:08 PM, woodzie264 said:

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.

Expand  

That'd be 5.04 inches, or more likely, just 5 inches.

I wonder if we'd have long ago had 58s… 57s… We'd probably be at about 60 or 61 for the low round in a major by now. Surely 62 seeing as how we've had so many lip-outs for 62.

[Club Rat]

  On 10/22/2016 at 9:23 PM, newtogolf said:

I think a 5" hole might make it more fair. 

Expand  

Just read an article this morning, Jim Furyk made the statement "We need to make golf more fun"
As @iacas has mentioned many times "Golf is Hard" and granted they have the Large Hole, something like 12' or so for events and to speed up play, but I'm with you, not only could a "5" hole be more fair", but it could make playing golf more fun for all along with possibly speeding up the time spent on greens putting. 

I would like to see USGA's view point on possibly using a 5" hole on a recreational basis and the current size for competition.

  Quote

Jim Furyk: We need to make golf more fun

Expand  

 

[iacas]

  On 10/23/2016 at 2:31 PM, Club Rat said:

Just read an article this morning, Jim Furyk made the statement "We need to make golf more fun"
As @iacas has mentioned many times "Golf is Hard" and granted they have the Large Hole, something like 12' or so for events and to speed up play, but I'm with you, not only could a "5" hole be more fair", but it could make playing golf more fun for all along with possibly speeding up the time spent on greens putting. 

Expand  

How is a 5" hole more "fair" than a 3" hole or an 18" hole?

  On 10/23/2016 at 2:31 PM, Club Rat said:

I would like to see USGA's view point on possibly using a 5" hole on a recreational basis and the current size for competition.

Expand  

I think you'd be laughed out of the room.

Golf courses are free to cut holes in whatever size they want. It's no longer golf, though. The USGA/R&A define what golf is and how it's played, and that includes the 4.25" hole. That's all I'm saying.

Players are always competing. Even on a regular Tuesday you have guys competing with each other, guys competing with themselves, leagues, etc.

"A hole in one on a 5" hole? Sorry, even if it hit the flagstick, we still can't really give you credit for it, because we just don't know if it would have gone in on a real hole… Nice shot, though."

---

I didn't start the topic because there's any talk of changing the hole size. That's not the point. The point is just whether, by happenstance and luck, we stumbled upon the "best" hole size.

I imagine that if back in the day they'd settled on a 5" hole, we'd see one of two things:

• Courses would have lower scores, lower ratings, we'd have seen 62s and 61s in majors, etc. Scoring, generally speaking, would be lower.
• Or… greens would simply have more break to them, more slope, to make putting about as difficult as it is now.

---

As for making golf more fun, I agree… to a point.

[Club Rat]

  On 10/23/2016 at 2:40 PM, iacas said:

The point is just whether, by happenstance and luck, we stumbled upon the "best" hole size.

Expand  

For what ever reason, the hole size is what it is, been that way before you and I were born.
Is it the best hole size? Who's to say, some like it but other may have reasons to consider another size.
It's a great game, but the idea of making a slight change to one aspect of the game could be considered.
I'm only stating a possible consideration to improve the quality of the game, possibly even speed up the game and the potential
to increase rounds played and other aspects which generate revenue for the golf industry.

 Who's to say it's perfect and why is it perfect?
Maybe perfect to some, but maybe others would enjoy a change, maybe even the game needs a small change for the good of the game.

 

[David in FL]

I struggle with the concept that just because you make something easier, you make it "more fun".  A great deal of the "fun" comes from the challenge in this game.  

[roamin]

  On 10/23/2016 at 3:26 PM, David in FL said:

 A great deal of the "fun" comes from the challenge in this game.

Expand  

This. I took the family to play mini-golf the other day and several holes actually had two cups. One normal cup, hidden away behind a barrier or on top of a hill, and a larger one placed in a much easier location. Even my 6 y/o ignored the larger cups and went for the small ones. When I asked her why, she said the big ones were for babies.

[Big C]

How much should putting and chipping skill contribute to your overall score? Is it too heavily weighted right now? Is it undervalued? Or is properly weighted right now? 

I imagine that you could change the hole diameter by about a quarter inch in either direction without seeing a huge change in overall scores. But a half inch or more would start to make a meaningful difference. With a 5 inch hole, you would start to see very few three putts and a lot more up and downs. And conversely, a 3.5 inch hole would give the guys who can control their distance and make short putts a huge advantage. 

Whether it was accomplished by sheer luck or good design, I personally think the current hole size is appropriate. I can't say that I think changing the value of the short game (either giving it more or less significance) would improve the game of golf. It seems about right to me currently.

[woodzie264]

  On 10/23/2016 at 3:26 PM, David in FL said:

I struggle with the concept that just because you make something easier, you make it "more fun".  A great deal of the "fun" comes from the challenge in this game.  

Expand  

Word.

[Divot Master]

  On 10/22/2016 at 11:39 PM, No Mulligans said:

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

Why is the Golf Hole Size 4.25 Inches in Diameter?

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

 

Expand  

But the RandA used the 1.62 inch diameter "small" ball until 1990. When the USGA adopted the 1.68 inch diameter standard, they should have increased the hole by 1.68/1.62, to a diameter of 4.41 inches, to provide a consistent difficulty.

[natureboy]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2014/04/15/10890/#65b6998f1889

The article cites that it improved some players' scores, and potentially significantly speeded play.

 

Pros have actually tried this experiment before (it didn't hurt the good putters):

  Quote

 

Gene Sarazen and some other prominent Pros decided that there was entirely too much emphasis being placed on the short game and particularly putting, and they wanted to "redesign golf to favor 'shotmaking.'" So they pressured some organizers of some winter tournaments in Florida to expand the hole from 4.5" to 8"

The first such tourney was called the "Florida Year-Round Open."

Most Players began charging every putt. It didn't work. Mr. Sarazen had 7 three putts in one round and 5 in another. Paul Runyan (one of the best short game / putting players of all time)? Zero three puttss & he won by 11 strokes

Mr. Sarazen was beside himself, and Mr. Runyan's post victory answer as to his thoughts on the new set-up, he smiled warmly and said that "it made the game much easier & more fun."

They decided that Mr. Runyan's performance and victory was an aberration so they convinced the organizer at the next stop, in Tampa, to cut the same 8" holes and switch the event from medal to match play, considered Mr. Sarazen's forte. The result? Paul Runyan defeated Willie McFarland, himself considered one of the top 5-6 short game players, for the victory.

 

Expand  

 

[dchoye]

  On 10/23/2016 at 8:00 PM, natureboy said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2014/04/15/10890/#65b6998f1889

The article cites that it improved some players' scores, and potentially significantly speeded play.

 

Pros have actually tried this experiment before (it didn't hurt the good putters):

 

Expand  

I theorize that smaller hole will give good ballstrikers with poorer putting a better chance against those who aren't as strong ballstrikers but excellent short game 

instead of excellent round of 24-28 putts a round maybe most player will level off good day at 29-32 putts with a slightly smaller hole. 

Edited October 23, 2016 by dchoye

[sjduffers]

The curent 4.25" size is pretty much set in stone, given all the history, stats, etc...

But, for fun, I do practice with the little holes they sometimes cut on the practice greens. What are they, maybe 2.5"? They aren't much bigger than a ball, and definitely smaller than 2 balls. After holing out a few putts from 6-8 feet (which may take a while, especially if I want to hole 2 putts in a row from the same spot), I move to the standard size hole, and now putts feel like I am putting to a bucket! Everything is relative, right Mr. Einstein? ;)

[Big C]

  On 10/23/2016 at 8:37 PM, dchoye said:

I theorize that smaller hole will give good ballstrikers with poorer putting a better chance against those who aren't as strong ballstrikers but excellent short game 

instead of excellent round of 24-28 putts a round maybe most player will level off good day at 29-32 putts with a slightly smaller hole. 

Expand  

You've got it exactly backwards. A smaller hole will increase the emphasis on a good short game. The good putter may lose 4-5 shots per round. A poor putter will easily lose 7-8 or more. If you want to help de-emphasize the short game, you increase the size of the cup.

There is a reason that legendary ball-striker Moe Norman would play betting matches with his friends where they wouldn't even count putting (essentially increasing the size of the hole to the entire green). 

[cutchemist42]

Is the hole size fair when we're on aerated greens haha. Might be the ONLY time a bit larger of a hole might be fair.

Kinda related but I recently played a course that had optional 15" cups. After holing out on the normal, I played around with the size from far distances and it got me thinking how different the scores would be. Does it equalize putting ability more across handicaps?

Similar thing is the rim in basketball but its elevated. Some might say the height of people today vs. when the height was standardized is a bit off. Goalie equipment is bigger while at the same time goalies became smarter about how to play while the net stayed the same, some think its off.

i guess my thought is we usually dont play on greens as cared for as tour level greens. Might 4.3/4.4 be fairer on a run down muni?

 

[natureboy]

  On 10/23/2016 at 8:37 PM, dchoye said:

I theorize that smaller hole will give good ballstrikers with poorer putting a better chance against those who aren't as strong ballstrikers but excellent short game 

Expand  

 

  On 10/23/2016 at 9:12 PM, Big C said:

You've got it exactly backwards. A smaller hole will increase the emphasis on a good short game. The good putter may lose 4-5 shots per round. A poor putter will easily lose 7-8 or more. If you want to help de-emphasize the short game, you increase the size of the cup.

Expand  

It's not clear to me that you are disagreeing with each other.

Mark Broadie looked at an 8.5" hole in simulation. His conclusion was that everyone would score lower (also agreeing with Cochran & Stubbs). But the larger hole would shrink the gap between bad and good putters.

While pros gained ~ 5 putts per round vs the standard hole size baseline, amateurs (~13 HCP) gained ~ 6.8 putts per round so they gained on the more skilled pros by ~ 1.8 shots. This was mostly due to a large reduction in 3-putts for the amateurs vs. a slight increase in 1-putts for the pros (they already rarely 3-putt). Both pro and amateur baselines shifted, but the worse putters got a bit more help.

There was a spread of about 18 handicap points from the amateurs to pros. The range between top and bottom (of about 200) pros' putting skills is roughly +1 to -1.2 SG (~ spread of 10 HCP points). So it's likely an 8.5" hole would narrow the gap between the best and worst pros by about 1 stroke, leaving only a range of +0.1 to -0.1 SG between top and bottom putters.

That would almost eliminate (83% reduction) the relative difference in putting skills. They would really be playing a different game. Pure ballstrikers like Vijay or Rory (or Tiger in his better driving years) would likely have been even more dominant in the 2000's with a larger hole. Likely only the most skilled short game specialists would even be able to keep their cards from year to year let alone win with any regularity.

So when an 8" hole was tested by Sarazen, why did 'Little Poison' still prevail in the two tournaments? Likely because the ballstrikers adopted much too aggressive a putting strategy and possibly due to pin placements on more difficult slopes. If they had stuck with the experiment, the ballstrikers probably would have adopted more optimal strategies over time.

[stealthhwk]

I voted a bit larger. And you're all gonna laugh at me!! Id like to see 4.5. I think just a smidge bigger would be perfect. I know we're talking .25 here, but for some reason just seems right to me. 

[RussUK]

I voted for a bit larger. I never really used to bother about it but the more i read about it and the stories of trials (such as Woburn) it started to make more sense in terms of lowering the frustration of putting. 

Woburn tried 6" holes and 15" holes (latter on shortend holes to see if it appealed to kids) and the guys who tested them said the size of the hole didnt make the game that much easier as you still have to get the ball to the green. Having the larger hole just took some of the fear (for want of a better word) out of putting.

They ran a feature in todays golfer about Woburns 15" holes with both high and low handicappers who thought for kids it was a great idea.

For me, maybe 6" there or thereabouts would be good.

[newtogolf]

This question, like all questions regarding the rules and regulations of golf, is difficult because of conflicting perspectives.  My original thought was that the current hole size was ideal for well manicured consistent greens but unfairly punished those who had to play on poorly maintained greens, overall I felt a slightly larger size was best.  

Ultimately the question goes back to what the originators believed the game should be and what the USGA and R&A believe is best for the game going forward with regards to the role putting plays in the overall scope of the game.  

On the surface it seems crazy that I could reach the green in 1-2 shots on a par 4 or 2-3 on a par 5 and still score bogey or worse due to the poor conditions of the greens and current hole size.  Thinking deeper on it, it seems almost genius that the originators of the game had the foresight to make putting nearly as important as the rest of the game so that one aspect of the game couldn't be ignored.  

If putting became easier, long hitters would dominate the game, the game is already headed in that direction but part of what keeps a Dustin Johnson from dominating every tournament he's in is that he's not the best putter and better short game players and putters have an opportunity to gain some strokes from him on and around the green.  

I could make an argument that on some public courses the putting surfaces are so poorly maintained a 5" hole would be fairer but I'm overall against bifurcation of the rules so in the end, I say leave the size alone.