Is 4.25" the Perfect Hole Size?

[Big C]

10 hours ago, natureboy said:

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

I disagreed with the hypothesis that a smaller hole would close the gap between someone with a mediocre short game and someone with an outstanding one. I believe it would enhance the gap significantly.

[natureboy]

4 minutes ago, Big C said:

I disagreed with the hypothesis that a smaller hole would close the gap between someone with a mediocre short game and someone with an outstanding one. I believe it would enhance the gap significantly.

Not sure I agree. Do you mean short game as in chipping and pitching only or including putting?

I think Broadie's simulation is pretty definitive.

I'd expect the larger hole to affect chips and pitches similarly to the putting by increasing chip-ins and pitch-ins slightly among good ballstrikers who are closer to the hole a lot, but otherwise don't have great technique or touch to hole many. Good chippers / pitchers would also hole more. Not sure who would gain more, though. I don't think it would narrow the skill gap quite as much as it would for the poorer putters as chip-ins are relatively rare and there's no equivalent to 3-putting in chipping unless you're really bad, and the hole size won't affect duffed and bladed shots.

[Big C]

Except we aren't talking about a larger hole. My response and the post that I replied to specifically talked about the effect of a smaller hole. 

My opinion is pretty simple.

Shrink the hole size = greater emphasis on putting/chipping/pitching. Guys who are better at those aspects of the game will benefit

Increase the hole size = reduced emphasis on putting/chipping/pitching. Guys who can hit the ball a long way and make a lot of GIR's will benefit

[arturo28mx]

I voted to increase the hole size by a bit, not to make it more fun but to SPEED UP PLAY.

In the clubs I play most groups take forever to finish their putts. Drives me nuts.

For me, 6 inches would be perfect.

[cutchemist42]

4 hours ago, newtogolf said:

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.  

Thats the only serious consideration I gave, and I think I came up with a comparable.

-Baseball is like gold in the sense that no two courses/stadiums are a like. Baseball allows for different field/fence dimensions while maintaining the same rules in terms of distance of bases/etc. I think baseball would be concerned though if some part of the surface so inadequate to make teams comparable across MLB. Comparing MLB to amateur baseball, I know lots of field dont maintain the proper pitchers mound height so maybe thats comparable, when it comes to Tour putting greens and what you find on a muni?

 

I basically wonder what difference might exist for your average 10-15 capper if he putts on a tour-level maintained green. You might need a large sample size to see the difference? Do you think you see a big or small difference?

 

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, cutchemist42 said:

I basically wonder what difference might exist for your average 10-15 capper if he putts on a tour-level maintained green. You might need a large sample size to see the difference? Do you think you see a big or small difference?

Given enough time to adjust (30 minutes to practice their speed?), studies have consistently shown that players putt better on Tour-level greens. They're truer and require smaller strokes.

It's easier to two-putt from long range on slower greens, but easier to make putts from 15 feet and in on tour-level greens.

I don't think poorly maintained greens really affect people's putting as negatively as they think. Here and there, when your ball hits the back of an aeration hole and jumps in the air and comes up five feet short, sure, but not as significantly as many think.

[CarlSpackler]

I think it should stay the same. I'm more of a traditionalist though.

The way most people play, you could put a stick in the green and when you roll your ball "somewhere close", call it good and move on. Nobody putts out anymore (self included).

 

[mcanadiens]

I don't really see much of an up side to changing the size of the hole for standard play.

That said, one of my local courses will put in special larger holes for particular youth events. They do a special on Sunday afternoons for the young kids and have designated short tees. Sounds like a great way for kids to learn the game and have enough success to make it fun for them.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

I don't really see much of an up side to changing the size of the hole for standard play.

To be clear again… that's not the point of the thread. Nobody is proposing changing the size of the hole.

I was just curious if, you could go back in history and change it yourself, if you would. In the past, not the future. Big difference!

[mcanadiens]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

To be clear again… that's not the point of the thread. Nobody is proposing changing the size of the hole.

I was just curious if, you could go back in history and change it yourself, if you would. In the past, not the future. Big difference!

I see. In other words, what if that first hole-cutter had been a half-inch bigger. 

In that event, I'd think modestly larger would be the way to go. Golf is hard enough as it is and a little less frustration would probably mean more golfers.

[jkelley9]

I think that it should be just slightly larger.

It should be large enough to where it is nearly impossible to do the "full 360 lip-out" except for a putt that would otherwise go 10+ ft. past the hole.

I believe right now a ball can do a full 360 lip out in only a distance control of 2-3 ft. past the hole. I kind of find this ridiculous.

So maybe 4.5-4.75 inches?

I can say with almost absolute certainty that my (estimated) index would be 2 strokes or more better than what it currently is... I've had a considerable amount of lip-outs these past ~20 rounds.

 

[newtogolf]

25 minutes ago, iacas said:

To be clear again… that's not the point of the thread. Nobody is proposing changing the size of the hole.

I was just curious if, you could go back in history and change it yourself, if you would. In the past, not the future. Big difference!

With the benefit of history to review the decision I'd say they got it right.  A larger hole size would make putting easier and place even more emphasis than there is today on the long game.  

Pretty impressive when you consider they designed this game without any concept of the equipment we would have available to us today but that over the last 6 or more decades the scoring hasn't changed significantly.  

[natureboy]

7 hours ago, Big C said:

Except we aren't talking about a larger hole. My response and the post that I replied to specifically talked about the effect of a smaller hole. 

Whoops, sorry I missed that. I thought you were on the established focus on the larger hole experiment idea.

5 hours ago, iacas said:

Given enough time to adjust (30 minutes to practice their speed?), studies have consistently shown that players putt better on Tour-level greens. They're truer and require smaller strokes.

It's easier to two-putt from long range on slower greens, but easier to make putts from 15 feet and in on tour-level greens.

But for the average golfer, isn't potential to 3-putt more often costlier vs benefit of making a few more par or birdie putts?

4 hours ago, newtogolf said:

With the benefit of history to review the decision I'd say they got it right.  A larger hole size would make putting easier and place even more emphasis than there is today on the long game.  

Pretty impressive when you consider they designed this game without any concept of the equipment we would have available to us today but that over the last 6 or more decades the scoring hasn't changed significantly.  

I'm definitely okay with the game as it is with mix of long game 'attack' and required green touch. Part of what makes the game demanding.

That said, I enjoy watching long game shots much more than putting on TV and wouldn't mind breezing through the greens a bit more quickly to get to the non-putting strokes.

[Golfingdad]

4 hours ago, newtogolf said:

With the benefit of history to review the decision I'd say they got it right.  A larger hole size would make putting easier and place even more emphasis than there is today on the long game.

I think that no matter what size they made the hole when the game started, the bold would be 100% true.  Everything that is significant to us has been shaped by how the game was developed and that would have also been true if they started with a 3" or 8" hole.  If it was 3", "par" might be determined by shots to reach the green plus 3 putts, or if it was 8" it would be approach +1, perhaps.  Or courses might be considerably longer or shorter.  Records would be mid to high 60's and par closer to 80, or in the low 50's and par at 60.  Who knows.

It all sounds laughable now, but our perception of everything has been shaped by a 4.25" hole.  If it had started differently, it would still be perfect, but differently.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

But for the average golfer, isn't potential to 3-putt more often costlier vs benefit of making a few more par or birdie putts?

No.

Unless by "often" you mean more often than 0% but less than maybe 40% of the time… because all the studies are clear.

[DrvFrShow]

I would have thought 3 ball diameters, but it is what it is. Basketball has a hoop 18" in diameter. The basketball is about 9.3" in diameter (men's), or 9.03" (women's), and some players can shoot 40% from 23' with that which if you think about it is pretty good.

So would a larger hole do anything? Probably lower my score a couple strokes, but I still have to get the ball to the green... and people still take the 12 - 18" gimmes. It might bring that magic 54 into play in the pros. 

I'd really like to see better green conditions rather than a larger hole. If I don't have to watch my ball bounce on its way to the hole I'm happy.

[70sSanO]

10 hours ago, newtogolf said:

With the benefit of history to review the decision I'd say they got it right.  A larger hole size would make putting easier and place even more emphasis than there is today on the long game.  

Pretty impressive when you consider they designed this game without any concept of the equipment we would have available to us today but that over the last 6 or more decades the scoring hasn't changed significantly.  

I would disagree that there would be more emphasis on the long game.  The player who is not as long and has to use a longer iron would have a better chance of making a longer putt with a larger hole.  The larger hole may be less of an advantage for the player who hits a wedge shot to within 6ft.

John

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, 70sSanO said:

I would disagree that there would be more emphasis on the long game.  The player who is not as long and has to use a longer iron would have a better chance of making a longer putt with a larger hole.  The larger hole may be less of an advantage for the player who hits a wedge shot to within 6ft.

But everyone's 1-putt and 3-putt percentages improve. That 6ft putt is now practically a gimme and with the standard cup it was about a 66% make chance.