Is 4.25" the Perfect Hole Size?

[70sSanO]

15 minutes ago, natureboy said:

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.

 

Did Mark Broadie's theoretical simulation employ Aim Point? (Lol)

By his own admission he did not analyze actual data as it would be too difficult to collect that data.

You can simulate whatever you want in a model.  One could just stay home and just simulate playing a round

My point in my post above was that, in reality, a larger hole may help to offset the distance advantage of the modern power game.  I don't know.

But if we are discussing perfect, then the diameter of the hole should reflect the proper weighting advantage of short to long game.

John

[Vinny Cap]

I think it is fine as that's the only size I have ever known.

Bigger, like 5' or 6' for kids might help them out a bit.

I like to practice with smaller targets like a 16 oz water bottle.  It is like 2.5" wide and after practice putting to that target the 4.5" hole seems like a manhole cover.

[Groucho Valentine]

If there is any bifurcation between pro and amateur golf, i think cup size could be a avenue to explore. Alot of other stick and ball sports do it. Hole size is not ingrained in me as an integral part of the game. So It could be fun to shake it up. Keep it the way it is for the pros, and make it an half-inch or inch bigger for the rest of us. Even for elite amateur tournaments like the USGA ams and D1 college. It keeps the pro game and its continuity the same, but makes it slightly more fun for the other 99% of us that play. 

[iacas]

7 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

My point in my post above was that, in reality, a larger hole may help to offset the distance advantage of the modern power game.  I don't know.

If the players are otherwise equal and one player is longer, that player will still have the advantage, because they'll end up closer to the hole. At any cup size, closer to the hole = easier to make the putt.

But let's stick to the topic.

Like I said before, if the cup size was six inches, we'd either see:

• Differently designed golf courses, particularly on the putting green with more undulation, smaller (or larger?) greens, etc.         -or-
• Lower par (though it's tough to imagine par 3.5 holes or whatever) and/or lower scoring records. Majors might be won at -32… like in disc golf where putting is ridiculously easy (comparatively).

As I may have also said, if I try really hard, I think that the hole is about the right size. It works for mini golf, you can still have sloping fast greens like at Oakmont or Augusta, you can make putts from long range while being good means you make a LOT from what I consider a reasonable short distance… It's large enough to give you some margin of error, but small enough to be frustrating when you miss from ten feet sometimes…

Someone earlier mentioned basketball, and given the scoring, I don't know if I'd just say "yeah it's fine" too just because historically it is what it is. I'd probably vote to make the hoop smaller. Games are high scoring (and kids already use smaller balls and lower the basket, making the hoop effectively larger). Soccer, I'd love to see maybe three fewer players per side. Hockey, well, the goaltending equipment has gotten out of hand, but I'd leave the goal itself alone (just change the goaltending equipment, please!). Baseball… not much has changed there. I wouldn't change much about the current status, yet as recently as the late 60s they lowered the mound.

[chilepepper]

I see no reason to change it. If one feels it's not large enough some courses have footgolf, use that hole

[natureboy]

9 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

Did Mark Broadie's theoretical simulation employ Aim Point? (Lol)

By his own admission he did not analyze actual data as it would be too difficult to collect that data.

But if we are discussing perfect, then the diameter of the hole should reflect the proper weighting advantage of short to long game.

In a way it kinda did. It used known data about golfer distance and direction errors and applied them with a physics model to pin placements on an average sloped green. Kind of how AimPoint created their charts. I agree simulation isn't perfect in real-world applications. I think using 'average slopes' somewhat under-weights the significance of short stretches of larger than average slope changes on putting accuracy. But it's still very useful for evaluating general relationships.

What do you think the right weighting of short to long game should be? Not 2/3 to 1/3?

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, natureboy said:

In a way it kinda did. It used known data about golfer distance and direction errors and applied them with a physics model to pin placements on an average sloped green.

Golfers might putt differently if the hole were a different size. For example, they'd likely be more aggressive. Any guess at that is not real-world data.

I'm with @70sSanO on not putting too much importance on the simulation.

[DrvFrShow]

I was the one who mentioned basketball. Back in the 1990s scores in the NBA started getting up around 118 points so they allowed zone defenses and it dropped them back down to 90 - 100 points for 48 mins. And considering it's a fast moving game that's good by me. College games are usually in the 60s for 40 mins which would be around 77 for 48 mins.

But greens? I've played on some really nice greens and some really bad greens. Most courses up here have poa annua greens and they get nasty in the afternoons ... bumpy... I've seen courses somehow control just how bumpy they get. The groundskeepers do something with the way they cut them and keep them smooth and rolling true. There's nothing more frustrating than to have the line read correctly and have the ball hit a tuft of poa and get knocked out of it's path just enough to miss going in. Or unevenness in the surface where it's fast then hits a spot where the ball just dies, but if you putt the ball hard enough to get past that patch, you're dead. It's greenskeeping. Leave the holes the same size and improve surface care.

[ZappyAd]

The club I play at has a new par three course (9 holes) with larger cups.  I think they must be about five golf balls wide.  It is great for beginners as you can be much more aggressive on long putts and chipping.  You also make more of the short three footers that can cause so much angst.  So I can see that it will build confidence because you see so many more shots around the green being holed.

However I'm not sure what happens when a beginner moves on to the main course.  Will they feel they can hole anything or get intimidated by the standard hole size?  After initially thinking it was a great idea I'm starting to think that having the standard size hole would have been a better idea.  After playing a few rounds I also think I prefer the standard hole size because the difficulty helps separate players more on the green.

[jsgolfer]

I like the hole size the way it is, but i think it would be fun to see a course make a larger hole (like they do on temporary greens) just to see what it would be like.  Would be a good end of year tournament thing.  

[NJpatbee]

I have been taking my grandson to a course that has green (junior or novice) tees and larger holes that go with them since he was 8.  He liked the fact that he had the ability to reach the greens in regulation but when he saw the larger holes he just looked at me and said why can't I just use the regular holes.  In his own way he wanted to play the game as close to the rules as possible.  So he played the regular holes and at age 11 he is now a very good putter.  Also, when I take him to other courses without youth tees we agree on a length but he is used to the regular size holes and does quite well. 

I agree better putting surfaces combined with more tee options would make the game more enjoyable for everyone - but no need to change the size of the hole. 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by NJpatbee

[iacas]

3 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

I like the hole size the way it is, but i think it would be fun to see a course make a larger hole (like they do on temporary greens) just to see what it would be like.  Would be a good end of year tournament thing.  

Whispering Woods here in Erie, PA has a yearly "big cup tournament."

[No Mulligans]

3 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

I like the hole size the way it is, but i think it would be fun to see a course make a larger hole (like they do on temporary greens) just to see what it would be like.  Would be a good end of year tournament thing.  

Lomas Santa Fe executive has pizza pie hole sizes near the back of greens in addition to the regular holes (or at least they did last time I played there).  I asked the starter if people where using them, he said he hadn't seen anyone use them.  I did get a "hole in one" into one of the large holes, didn't count as I was playing the small holes.  I got to place it on the green at the nearest point of relief as I considered it an immovable obstruction.

[Buckeyebowman]

I read an article many, many, many years ago where a course was cut with, I believe, 6 inch cups. This was a public course populated by your average assortment of public course hackers. Stats showed that there was no appreciable improvement in scoring due to the oversized cups.

One thing I have noticed is on older courses which were built when mower technology and agronomy might produce a putting surface that would stimp at 7 or 8 at best. These greens have a lot of slope to them.With modern mowers and rollers they can now get these greens to 10 or 11, and suddenly you're putting in the bizarro world!

You might have to play 8 to 10 feet of break on a 20 foot putt across the slope. And you'd better have angels sitting on your shoulders if you hope to stop the ball anywhere near the hole on a downhill putt. 

[jsgolfer]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

Whispering Woods here in Erie, PA has a yearly "big cup tournament."

Cool, too bad I'm not closer to Erie.  

[iacas]

39 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

I read an article many, many, many years ago where a course was cut with, I believe, 6 inch cups. This was a public course populated by your average assortment of public course hackers. Stats showed that there was no appreciable improvement in scoring due to the oversized cups.

I find that almost impossible to believe, unless one (or both) of two things were true:

• the players routinely gave themselves putts they shouldn't have…
• the definition of "appreciable" is much wider than my own.

FWIW, I'd call two or three strokes "appreciable."

[Buckeyebowman]

Well, I forget the exact number since it was a long time ago that I read the article. But I do remember the jist of it!

EDIT: And now that I think about it more, I believe it a was a fraction of a stroke difference!

Edited October 27, 2016 by Buckeyebowman