Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Mike Nuzzo on April 16, 2014, 03:32:52 PM
-
Geoff Shackelford posted a blog about the 15" cup.
Wouldn't the 15" cup minimize the strategy of the green, green slopes and features?
Playing the 15" cup would seem to be a race to get near the green - bomb away - as chipping in is far more likely - Paul Runyon like - less strategy off the tee.
Wouldn't the "green" eventually have to get much larger to create a strategy similar to regular golf?
And then wouldn't the "green" need to be more highly maintained?
Seems like a bad long term solution
I say more great pitch-n-putt courses - not that I've ever seen a great one.
Cheers
-
I think there are people who spend hour after hour banging drivers at driving ranges but who only occasionally play a round of golf.
This tells me that Pitch-and-Putt courses have an uphill battle for customers. Nobody I know goes somewhere to chip and putt for two hours after work a couple evenings a week, even the guys that are range rats.
People like hitting the ball a long way into open areas. This is the root preference that makes any attempt to grow the game through tiny little limited real estate facilities (whether Pitch-and-Putt, Par 3 or "Executive" layouts). I remember as a beginner I would go to a local Par 3 course but that quickly got Real Old because any errant swing was a lost ball or even a danger to someone on an adjacent hole.
Being able to rear back and give the ball a fair old thump is a very attractive element to golf. Attempts to make the game more accessible by limited or eliminating that element are IMO doomed to fail. If you're not going to be whacking the ball and watching it sail through the sky then best to stick to Putt-Putt and be done.
-
Nobody I know goes somewhere to chip and putt for two hours after work a couple evenings a week, even the guys that are range rats.
The handful of very good - meaning low single digit handicap or better - golfers I know do in fact do this, that is, practice chipping and putting for a few hours a week.
The overall idea seems like one of those things that will blow up due to unintended consequences. I believe there are A LOT of times where golfers are penalized playing in from a poor angle, but don't end up realizing it, because they happen to hit a good shot that overcomes the poor angle. I think a 15" hole would magnify this effect times 100, maybe more.
I posted on another thread a couple days ago that many or most learn the wrong lessons in golf and in life. All a 15" hole would do is magnify - or perhaps cement - those wrong lessons. The green stuff is important, no matter how much the ball strikers don't want it to be.
-
I think there are people who spend hour after hour banging drivers at driving ranges but who only occasionally play a round of golf.
Yes but there are a lot of people who only play miniature golf, too.
-
One of the clubs near my home course experimented with larger cups a couple of falls ago. Apparently Nicklaus was pushing it. A group of us visited as our course was in the midst of regrassing our greens. We found it to be quite strange. we had a faux hole in one and several pitch/chips hole out. as reported in a 930's experiment sponsored by Sarazen, good putters still made more putts; the zone where the difference shoed up was merely extended several feet so that missing ,say an 8 footer became like missing a 3 footer. All in all the game was different. Had I started with the larger cup, maybe I would have liked it as well but it seemed awfully contrived and didn't change the balance of the game as much as one would think. Finally, for the average player, I suspect the area where he can most emulate his TV heroes is on the green as it takes less coordination. Making that part easier won't help as much as we think.
-
Nobody I know goes somewhere to chip and putt for two hours after work a couple evenings a week, even the guys that are range rats.
The handful of very good - meaning low single digit handicap or better - golfers I know do in fact do this, that is, practice chipping and putting for a few hours a week...........
........All a 15" hole would do is magnify - or perhaps cement - those wrong lessons. The green stuff is important, no matter how much the ball strikers don't want it to be.
Well said.
Keep working solely on your long game guys coz those folk who do bother to develop and maintain good short game and putting skills (plus course management) are usually more than delighted to take money from the wallets of those who just work on their full-shot game. :):):)
atb
-
Thomas,
I didn't think we were talking about getting 5-handicappers who want to be 2-handicappers going out to play these Pitch-and-Putt courses. I thought we were talking about getting people who never or rarely set foot on a golf course to play Pitch-and-Putt as a gateway activity.
I'm simply describing what I perceive as the three popular golf-related activities. Playing golf (on a real course), hitting balls on a driving range (mostly with the driver I suspect) and playing Putt-Putt.
A bunch of 80-yard holes with 500 square foot greens and 15" cups, presumably built on an acre or two of land per hole, seems neither fish nor fowl when it comes to the most popular activities. Not to say there isn't a huge untapped market there. But I don't see it any more attractive to beginners than the currently popular alternatives and I truly don't see it being attractive to someone who already plays 30-80 rounds as a supplement.
So Mike, were you thinking practice facility for wanna-be scratch golfers or an alternative activity for those who don't want to or can't get out on a real golf course?
-
Played the Monarch Dunes challenge course recently. Had both size cups in their 12 greens (it's a 12 hole par 3 course, but not pitch and putt, the back tee yardages range from 120-240 or so and the greens are designed equal to their full course, not downsized or simplified.
Great fun. As mentioned above, a wedge in, a few chip ins, and more long putts made. My take was it was more of the kind of shots that bring golfers back.
While traditional golfers may never like it (although, if I liked it, I suspect some or many others will too) new golfers will probably like it more. And, getting new golfers in the game is the only strategy really in play here.
-
15 " CUPS will make the game much quicker. A round could drop nearly an hour. A lot of time is spent on greens and the wilder the greens the slower play will be.
It is not GOLF though so no point in taking in any further, some games you just cant change the rules and associated history.
-
In Iowa when I grew up, nearly every course held an 8 inch cup event at some point late in the season. The biggest change was that you wanted to hit your putts more firmly. A six foot comeback was like a 3 foot putt. It was easier to chip in.
I thought it dropped my score 3-4 strokes which was fun, but imposed a unique kind of pressure. I recall getting psyched out one day and leaving a bunch of putts short.
I think this idea is a dumb one. The game would be just as difficult, we would just expect to score better.
-
I am asking about strategy when it comes to the 15" cup - I say it changes far more than Hack golf anticipates - if it were to miraculously become popular.
I wish I didn't mention the pitch-n-putt
The premise of the 15" cup is to make golf more fun and faster
The guy banging on the range doesn't need it more fun or faster - all they have to do is pick up the ball, give themselves a put, shorten their pre shot routing or play nine holes...
The 15" cup is marketed to the occasional golfer
Why mess with an entire golf course when you can play pitch-n-putt - that is how I started and would still play if one were nearby
Since we're building one an hour away I'll let y'all know when done - not a par 3 course - a pitch-n-putt.
This is for a municipality where we will also rebuild their regular courses greens+
Cheers
-
I am asking about strategy when it comes to the 15" cup - I say it changes far more than Hack golf anticipates - if it were to miraculously become popular.
I think it makes putting less important. Surprisingly,TMAG is more of a driver company,putter sales being less critical.
Color me cynical.
-
I think the 15" cups are dumb. It still does nothing to address the fact that the full swing is the most difficult part of the game.
15" cups don't do much for the guy or girl that can't hit the ball more than 5 yards off the tee.
-
I also think this is a dumb idea. Why not make the cups as big as basketball hoops and change the name from golf to something else? Better yet, do away with clubs and throw the ball?
-
30 inch cups-twice as fun, 45 inchers three times as much fun ::) ::)
or better yet, dig out the entire fairway and call it a 40 yard cup
that will speed things up
to answer Mike's question
I'm not sure someone playing to a 15 inch cups wants compensations to greens to make the game more like "regular golf",or he would play "regular golf"
-
Jeff and Brian,
You guys took the words right of my mouth.
Why are we trying so hard to think up ideas to make the game easier or more friendly.
I understand its a money thing- but no matter what I say or do - My 12 year old son has no interest. He chooses not to play.
To me , with golf, you either love it or hate it. I am not sure you can make people convert.
How about you just go practice-
What is difficult is sometimes more enjoyed- if I stripe a drive down a narrow fairway- it is more enjoyable than hitting one down a 100 yard wide fairway. If I hit an iron shot from a 150 yards out over a bunker to a couple of feet - it is more enjoyable than skulling one up the fairway to a few feet from a 15 inch wide cup that I should make.
The game is supposed to be challenging
-
Jeff and Brian,
You guys took the words right of my mouth.
Why are we trying so hard to think up ideas to make the game easier or more friendly.
I understand its a money thing- but no matter what I say or do - My 12 year old son has no interest. He chooses not to play.
To me , with golf, you either love it or hate it. I am not sure you can make people convert.
How about you just go practice-
What is difficult is sometimes more enjoyed- if I stripe a drive down a narrow fairway- it is more enjoyable than hitting one down a 100 yard wide fairway. If I hit an iron shot from a 150 yards out over a bunker to a couple of feet - it is more enjoyable than skulling one up the fairway to a few feet from a 15 inch wide cup that I should make.
The game is supposed to be challenging
to take this a step further.
How much would it suck if you played on 15 inch cups with a guy that you regularly beat who holed EVERY single putt from on the green and you barely made anything over 10 feet.
So now you're playing a game that's supposed to be easier and more fun, and you feel like you've got the yips on every putt outside 6 feet ::) ::)-because everybody else is draining long putts ;) ;D
Let's fix the people who play and run golf, not the game
-
the funny thing i find is the guys who come up with these ridiculous ideas I wonder if they have ever played a muni or a 9 hole track. People learning at muni's or through caddying would be offended by these dumb ideas.
Those are my sentiments :D
How about a fresca judge?
-
It's all a matter of perspective. For 95% of the people who have ever played the game, the idea of learning "through caddying" would be a complete head-scratcher.
-
It's all a matter of perspective. For 95% of the people who have ever played the game, the idea of learning "through caddying" would be a complete head-scratcher.
Why? I had close friends that learned that way and my father did too. Now many cart boys learn that way through having access from working at upscale pubic. They first are attracted to the job for the tips, then they try it, they like it or they don't
-
Don't forget to buy a new hole cutter for your 15" cups. ::)
(http://www.digga.com/images/large/one-man1.jpg)
-
This as with power play etc is just not golf.
Twenty20 gave cricket a boost and other sports seem intent on finding their own watered down version, but you either want to play golf or you don't.
-
sounds like a sure way to speed up play. can concede 8 foot putts??
-
I played in a charity outing that had a fun twist. Each of the four par 3s had three standard size holes cut into them and a player could putt to the cup of his/her choice, usually the closest. It was fun for all handicap ranges and it had the nice side effect of speeding up the putting as every cup was used, at least by my group. ;D
Wouldn't be hard to adapt the idea for occasional use, maybe on the threes plus a few of the harder fours. Better than a 15" hole in the ground.
-
It's all a matter of perspective. For 95% of the people who have ever played the game, the idea of learning "through caddying" would be a complete head-scratcher.
Why? I had close friends that learned that way and my father did too. Now many cart boys learn that way through having access from working at upscale pubic. They first are attracted to the job for the tips, then they try it, they like it or they don't
Right. That's the 5%. Lot of people on this forum live in that world. Most golfers (the 95%) do not so they think it's all just something they saw on Caddyshack or that maybe happened back in the 60's before most of them were born.
-
It's all a matter of perspective. For 95% of the people who have ever played the game, the idea of learning "through caddying" would be a complete head-scratcher.
Why? I had close friends that learned that way and my father did too. Now many cart boys learn that way through having access from working at upscale pubic. They first are attracted to the job for the tips, then they try it, they like it or they don't
Right. That's the 5%. Lot of people on this forum live in that world. Most golfers (the 95%) do not so they think it's all just something they saw on Caddyshack or that maybe happened back in the 60's before most of them were born.
Have you ever caddied or worked in a bagroom/cart boy? Whatever the percent is, I think golf is served well by having people who learn respect for the game and get free access to Golf. Almost every private club in even small/big town had large caddie programs. Just because a guy named Tiger made Golf cool, doesn't mean caddies/cart boys having access to free golf doesn't grow the game. If your guess of 5% is right, I am sure many courses are in need of that 5%. I have done those jobs at many courses, again have you Brent? Any firsthand experience in thee Yard?
-
It's all a matter of perspective. For 95% of the people who have ever played the game, the idea of learning "through caddying" would be a complete head-scratcher.
Now many cart boys learn that way through having access from working at upscale pubic.
Is upscale pubic waxed or 60's style?
-
Twenty20 gave cricket a boost and other sports seem intent on finding their own watered down version, but you either want to play golf or you don't.
Yes but with the exception of a few tweaked fielding rules the major difference between T20 cricket and test or one day is the length of the games. The equivalent for golf would be just playing 9 holes.
The 15 inch cup is an admission that a major part of your sport needs changing and shows that desperation is beginning to set in in the world of golf.
-
Mike, I agree that the idea would impact all aspects of the game, not just putting. Strategy works from the hole back to the tee, and if you are starting off with a 15 inch hole, then some of the strategic options are going to play out differently throughout. Just bashing it up there close and then chipping would seem to be a more viable option with a 15 inch cup.
The 15" cup is marketed to the occasional golfer
This might make sense for Taylor Made, so long as those occasional golfers regularly buy equipment, but I am not so sure it makes sense for golf or golf architecture. Golf has been trying the make-the-game-easier route for a while now, to no avail.
-
It's all a matter of perspective. For 95% of the people who have ever played the game, the idea of learning "through caddying" would be a complete head-scratcher.
Why? I had close friends that learned that way and my father did too. Now many cart boys learn that way through having access from working at upscale pubic. They first are attracted to the job for the tips, then they try it, they like it or they don't
Right. That's the 5%. Lot of people on this forum live in that world. Most golfers (the 95%) do not so they think it's all just something they saw on Caddyshack or that maybe happened back in the 60's before most of them were born.
Have you ever caddied or worked in a bagroom/cart boy? Whatever the percent is, I think golf is served well by having people who learn respect for the game and get free access to Golf. Almost every private club in even small/big town had large caddie programs. Just because a guy named Tiger made Golf cool, doesn't mean caddies/cart boys having access to free golf doesn't grow the game. If your guess of 5% is right, I am sure many courses are in need of that 5%. I have done those jobs at many courses, again have you Brent? Any firsthand experience in thee Yard?
No. I never set foot on a golf course until I was 33 years old. And to that point in my life I had known exactly two people who played golf. One kid a couple years older than me who lived in the neighborhood played on the high school golf team. And I dated a girl for a while whose father played.
Which is my whole point. I grew up in a context where golf never even came up in conversation. Much less was something one did at a Country Club one belonged to. Millions of people are from the same background. Honest to god I don't think there was a place within 25 miles of my house that employed caddies in my lifetime (OK maybe when I was an infant in the 60's, who knows?).
For lots of golfers, the game is learned as an adult walking out onto some public courses with borrowed clubs and whacking the ball around with some guys from work. And many of them go on to play golf for years or decades without ever setting foot on a property that includes "the Yard" at all.
Sometimes people who grow up in that 5% seem to think the entire game consists of the Country Club world writ large. It's a very, very minority part of the game in most places.
-
No. I never set foot on a golf course until I was 33 years old. And to that point in my life I had known exactly two people who played golf. One kid a couple years older than me who lived in the neighborhood played on the high school golf team. And I dated a girl for a while whose father played.
Which is my whole point. I grew up in a context where golf never even came up in conversation. Much less was something one did at a Country Club one belonged to. Millions of people are from the same background. Honest to god I don't think there was a place within 25 miles of my house that employed caddies in my lifetime (OK maybe when I was an infant in the 60's, who knows?).
first of all caddying is very big in the midwest and N East (presume) Millions grew up just like you and many others that their parent's didn't play golf but they did these weird thing ''dropped their kids off to actually work''. It is funny for i txted and went through all my friends that learned through caddying. So because no one within 25 miles of where you grew up caddied means that it wasn't huge in many regions of the country?
For lots of golfers, the game is learned as an adult walking out onto some public courses with borrowed clubs and whacking the ball around with some guys from work. And many of them go on to play golf for years or decades without ever setting foot on a property that includes "the Yard" at all.That is one big sector, company leagues are big now. but many did through caddying and now through shlepping carts at upscale public that weren't prominent 25 years ago!
Sometimes people who grow up in that 5% seem to think the entire game consists of the Country Club world writ large. It's a very, very minority part of the game in most places.I didn't grow up in the 5%, I am from Toledo,OH. John Denver wrote a song ripping on the city, so nice class warfare tactic. I included many other aspects of the CC world (for it seems to be shrinking). Most of my friends didn't grow up at CC, and they all learned through looping. Also many cart shleppers in Florida learned that way too. This is all prior to Tiger woods becoming a world wide phenom. Your outlook is so cynical, I think you have watch caddie shack too many times. Many who I caddied for were caddies growing up, it wasn't blue blood. Again many courses would gladly take that 5% number you came up with
-
No. I never set foot on a golf course until I was 33 years old. And to that point in my life I had known exactly two people who played golf. One kid a couple years older than me who lived in the neighborhood played on the high school golf team. And I dated a girl for a while whose father played.
Which is my whole point. I grew up in a context where golf never even came up in conversation. Much less was something one did at a Country Club one belonged to. Millions of people are from the same background. Honest to god I don't think there was a place within 25 miles of my house that employed caddies in my lifetime (OK maybe when I was an infant in the 60's, who knows?).
first of all caddying is very big in the midwest and N East (presume) Millions grew up just like you and many others that their parent's didn't play golf but they did these weird thing ''dropped their kids off to actually work''. It is funny for i txted and went through all my friends that learned through caddying. So because no one within 25 miles of where you grew up caddied means that it wasn't huge in many regions of the country?
For lots of golfers, the game is learned as an adult walking out onto some public courses with borrowed clubs and whacking the ball around with some guys from work. And many of them go on to play golf for years or decades without ever setting foot on a property that includes "the Yard" at all.That is one big sector, company leagues are big now. but many did through caddying and now through shlepping carts at upscale public that weren't prominent 25 years ago!
Sometimes people who grow up in that 5% seem to think the entire game consists of the Country Club world writ large. It's a very, very minority part of the game in most places.I didn't grow up in the 5%, I am from Toledo,OH. John Denver wrote a song ripping on the city, so nice class warfare tactic. I included many other aspects of the CC world (for it seems to be shrinking). Most of my friends didn't grow up at CC, and they all learned through looping. Also many cart shleppers in Florida learned that way too. This is all prior to Tiger woods becoming a world wide phenom. Your outlook is so cynical, I think you have watch caddie shack too many times. Many who I caddied for were caddies growing up, it wasn't blue blood. Again many courses would gladly take that 5% number you came up with
Ben-As usual you have gotten far away from the original topic and at this point your ramblings have absolutely nothing to do with 15 inch cups and green strategy. We know from you repeating ad nauseum that you think caddies and cart boys are the backbone and savior of our great game. You seem to work it into every thread and it is tiresome at best. There are plenty of ways to get interested in and learn about golf/golf architecture and not all all of them start and finish in the "yard". ::)
-
The strategy would come from a 4'25 inch wide cup but 15" long. Placing the cup parallel or perpendicular to the fairway would dictate your approach, as would green contours, etc.
Probably would end up taking the same time for high handicappers and possibly longer for good players (over-analyze?).
-
No. I never set foot on a golf course until I was 33 years old. And to that point in my life I had known exactly two people who played golf. One kid a couple years older than me who lived in the neighborhood played on the high school golf team. And I dated a girl for a while whose father played.
Which is my whole point. I grew up in a context where golf never even came up in conversation. Much less was something one did at a Country Club one belonged to. Millions of people are from the same background. Honest to god I don't think there was a place within 25 miles of my house that employed caddies in my lifetime (OK maybe when I was an infant in the 60's, who knows?).
first of all caddying is very big in the midwest and N East (presume) Millions grew up just like you and many others that their parent's didn't play golf but they did these weird thing ''dropped their kids off to actually work''. It is funny for i txted and went through all my friends that learned through caddying. So because no one within 25 miles of where you grew up caddied means that it wasn't huge in many regions of the country?
For lots of golfers, the game is learned as an adult walking out onto some public courses with borrowed clubs and whacking the ball around with some guys from work. And many of them go on to play golf for years or decades without ever setting foot on a property that includes "the Yard" at all.That is one big sector, company leagues are big now. but many did through caddying and now through shlepping carts at upscale public that weren't prominent 25 years ago!
Sometimes people who grow up in that 5% seem to think the entire game consists of the Country Club world writ large. It's a very, very minority part of the game in most places.I didn't grow up in the 5%, I am from Toledo,OH. John Denver wrote a song ripping on the city, so nice class warfare tactic. I included many other aspects of the CC world (for it seems to be shrinking). Most of my friends didn't grow up at CC, and they all learned through looping. Also many cart shleppers in Florida learned that way too. This is all prior to Tiger woods becoming a world wide phenom. Your outlook is so cynical, I think you have watch caddie shack too many times. Many who I caddied for were caddies growing up, it wasn't blue blood. Again many courses would gladly take that 5% number you came up with
Ben-As usual you have gotten far away from the original topic and at this point your ramblings have absolutely nothing to do with 15 inch cups and green strategy. We know from you repeating ad nauseum that you think caddies and cart boys are the backbone and savior of our great game. You seem to work it into every thread and it is tiresome at best. There are plenty of ways to get interested in and learn about golf/golf architecture and not all all of them start and finish in the "yard". ::)
Timmie, as usual you are trolling. Adding nothing to the 15 inch cup thread yourself. You remind me of Timmie in Seinfeld that tells George not to double dip, not that I would. Were you a tattle tale in school growing up? I never indicated caddies and cart boys being majority of the game. The funny thing is I bet many on here did start in the yard.. The fact that we are talking about 15 inch cups on here is pretty sad.. Those are my sentiments ;D
-
No. I never set foot on a golf course until I was 33 years old. And to that point in my life I had known exactly two people who played golf. One kid a couple years older than me who lived in the neighborhood played on the high school golf team. And I dated a girl for a while whose father played.
Which is my whole point. I grew up in a context where golf never even came up in conversation. Much less was something one did at a Country Club one belonged to. Millions of people are from the same background. Honest to god I don't think there was a place within 25 miles of my house that employed caddies in my lifetime (OK maybe when I was an infant in the 60's, who knows?).
first of all caddying is very big in the midwest and N East (presume) Millions grew up just like you and many others that their parent's didn't play golf but they did these weird thing ''dropped their kids off to actually work''. It is funny for i txted and went through all my friends that learned through caddying. So because no one within 25 miles of where you grew up caddied means that it wasn't huge in many regions of the country?
For lots of golfers, the game is learned as an adult walking out onto some public courses with borrowed clubs and whacking the ball around with some guys from work. And many of them go on to play golf for years or decades without ever setting foot on a property that includes "the Yard" at all.That is one big sector, company leagues are big now. but many did through caddying and now through shlepping carts at upscale public that weren't prominent 25 years ago!
Sometimes people who grow up in that 5% seem to think the entire game consists of the Country Club world writ large. It's a very, very minority part of the game in most places.I didn't grow up in the 5%, I am from Toledo,OH. John Denver wrote a song ripping on the city, so nice class warfare tactic. I included many other aspects of the CC world (for it seems to be shrinking). Most of my friends didn't grow up at CC, and they all learned through looping. Also many cart shleppers in Florida learned that way too. This is all prior to Tiger woods becoming a world wide phenom. Your outlook is so cynical, I think you have watch caddie shack too many times. Many who I caddied for were caddies growing up, it wasn't blue blood. Again many courses would gladly take that 5% number you came up with
Ben-As usual you have gotten far away from the original topic and at this point your ramblings have absolutely nothing to do with 15 inch cups and green strategy. We know from you repeating ad nauseum that you think caddies and cart boys are the backbone and savior of our great game. You seem to work it into every thread and it is tiresome at best. There are plenty of ways to get interested in and learn about golf/golf architecture and not all all of them start and finish in the "yard". ::)
Timmie, as usual you are trolling. Adding nothing to the 15 inch cup thread yourself. You remind me of Timmie in Seinfeld that tells George not to double dip, not that I would. Were you a tattle tale in school growing up? I never indicated caddies and cart boys being majority of the game. The funny thing is I bet many on here did start in the yard.. The fact that we are talking about 15 inch cups on here is pretty sad.. Those are my sentiments ;D
Ben-Although I don't ever remember being a tattle tale I was a caddie. It's a shame that for a fairly young guy you have such a narrow view of the world and our great game.
-
''Ben-Although I don't ever remember being a tattle tale I was a caddie. It's a shame that for a fairly young guy you have such a narrow view of the world and our great game.''
I consider myself very in tune with the world and have met many great people ingrained in Golf. Have fun with those 15 inch cups.
-
Let me try to bring it back to topic. Caddy programs have about as much chance of growing the game as 15 inch cups.
-
Let me try to bring it back to topic. Caddy programs have about as much chance of growing the game as 15 inch cups.
David-
Would you mind expanding?
Thanks,
MS
-
I think the 15" cups are dumb. It still does nothing to address the fact that the full swing is the most difficult part of the game.
15" cups don't do much for the guy or girl that can't hit the ball more than 5 yards off the tee.
This is where I think the issue lies.
Putting is hard, but for a beginner it's the easiest part of the game. Really growing the game needs to involve bringing new people in, not just getting the casual player to play more. The barrier to that is that learning the golf swing is really, really hard.
And I'm not at all sure that 15 inch cups even make the game more popular among casual players. The people who might find that attractive are probably not guys sweating out their 4 foot putts. The kind of person who isn't taking gimmes on a 4 footer is likely to not consider this "real" golf, no matter how much he plays.
-
The strategy would come from a 4'25 inch wide cup but 15" long. Placing the cup parallel or perpendicular to the fairway would dictate your approach, as would green contours, etc.
Probably would end up taking the same time for high handicappers and possibly longer for good players (over-analyze?).
Now that is a game changing concept. An oblong rather than round hole. Could potentially add more relevance to angles of play than any hazard between tee and green. I have nothing against the cup as is and I have my doubts changing the cup would bring a lot of people to the game who wouldn't already play. But I also have my doubts that a target once arbitrarily chosen in a time when the playing surfaces barely resemble what is played on today is necessarily the most interesting way to conclude a hole. Change the hole and everything changes, which is the scary part. Mike asked whether it would reduce strategy. Yeah, if nothing else changes. But why wouldn't a change to the hole lead to other changes, for example, far more dramatic undulations within greens?
-
David-
Would you mind expanding?
Thanks,
MS
Sure. I assume you were asking for me to expand re caddy programs because I already gave my thoughts on the Big Gulp GolfTM above.
I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with caddies or caddy programs and I have no doubt that some limited number of kids are introduced to the game through caddying. Nonetheless, I just don't see caddy programs by as a realistic solution to grow the game. It is purely a numbers issue. I don't remember where, but I read recently that over 5 million golfers have given up the game since 2000. There aren't enough caddies or caddy programs to make a dent in that, are there?
More generally, there are a relatively small number of clubs have caddy programs, as compared to the number of courses that don't. And many of those employ professional caddies who are already into golf, don't they? So, each year, how many new caddies are exposed through caddying programs? And of these how many would not be exposed to the game otherwise? (Caddying seems like hard work, so my guess is that some kids who want to caddy have an interest in the game.) Whatever the number it must be minuscule when compared to the number of golfers nationwide (around 25 million), or even the number of golfers leaving the game.
In short, it would take many million caddies to grow the game, and there just aren't that many caddy programs.
-
I think you guys cannot even see the point. Golf works great for about 8M old white guys like us, for whom it is great just the way it is. Why change? Why should anyone ever want something different that what is traditional golf?
Does the NBA fight street basketball? Stop anyone from playing in the driveway? Does the MLB fight softball? Why shouldn't there be cheaper, easier versions of golf to access for the masses? Heck, if there were, more folks would enjoy the essense of the game - hitting a ball with a club. Maybe some (like Japan) never get out of the Top Golf driving range, and others never get off the 12 hole challenge courses with big cups. So what?
Well, tradition is great, and change is constant. While we all love golf as it is, it is not out of the question that it will be forced to change with the times to survive, even having done quite well for 500 years without a lot of change (although, we can all argue that, and often do when it comes to tech, turf and whatever else) For that matter, is the "golf is meant to be tough?" really true? Or was golf meant to be fun?
I think what the USGA gets stuck on is the "one rules" setup. However, its not like every course will have 15" (or pick a more reasonable size) but that some will offer an alternative. I see a lot of housing courses converting parts of golf to more residential for profit, but also horseshoes, dog parks, skateboard parks, whatever, leaving the 9-12 hole challenge course (or whatever the site dictates) as one recreation option, not the only one. We have so many more recreation options, it could be the "market" will tell developers.
More than that, just as modern courses got more visual because we were the TV generation, I fully expect some design changes for the next "play station" generation. Not sure what it may be, but will center on more tech and more "instant information" to reflect life as it is and will be. Probably more like Top Golf, with computer chips embedded in the ball for total shot link type info on every shot in the players Google Golf Glasses, or something like that.
Of course, none of us can say, but it may be that golf has a tough choice - remain an old world game that a few play in secret, and a few others try every few years on a lark, or get with the times. Most here will protest, but again, none of us can say if golf can stick its head in the sand and survive.
Or, with 15K golf courses, some blend of both. Now, you might be like the USGA guy who said Hack Golf can do whatever they want, but we won't call it golf. Fine, although I think keeping the loose affiliation with golf as the ancestor is probably inevitable (Top Golf.......I am your father......) Or not. Maybe the generations of minorities and poor that have a bad image of golf might be more likely to take it up in some other version called something totally different.
-
''Of course, none of us can say, but it may be that golf has a tough choice - remain an old world game that a few play in secret, and a few others try every few years on a lark, or get with the times. Most here will protest, but again, none of us can say if golf can stick its head in the sand and survive.''
Jeff,
Please. Golf was booming and goes hand in hand with the economy. I am sure you miss the artificial boom times, but you r insulting many people with the idea of 15 inch cup, and I don't look at things through GCA eyes. People are either going to Frisbee golf or they are not, and I love Frisbee golf. 9 hole courses are popping up and money is getting put into them. Do you really believe the diatribe you just wrote? I find it funny shack wrote about this, after finishing the first two chapters of one of his books talking about his pure intentions for golf.
''Maybe the generations of minorities and poor that have a bad image of golf might be more likely to take it up in some other version called something totally different.''
Tiger Woods or through caddying (which i have caddied with inner city kids) great to watch them succeed, but of course you can't mention caddying on here. Jeff, when was the last time you played an inner city muni?
-
There are 100 things I can think of that might make golf more attractive to a working class non-white kid coming along today. Making the holes in putting greens 15" hole instead of 4-1/2" one doesn't even make list. Doesn't come close.
Where does an idea like that start? Is there some consultant's report somewhere saying that putting to a small hole is a major barrier to golf participation.
I hate to quit pulling my punches because I like and respect you guys and your intentions are honorable but it's sheer nonsense. The size of the hole has nothing to do with nothing.
As for the sidetrack concerning pitch-and-putt courses, if someone wants to build them and someone wants to play them then I think they are a great idea. But again, little to do with golf and I can't see it having any impact beyond creation of a presumably fun activity, pitch-and-putt. At most it's a competing alternative to golf. More likely it's not even operating in the same market.
-
Random thoughts
Here's what really cracks me up.
15 inch cups are going to have kids roaring out of the ghetto to embrace golf.? ::)
presumably because they have the yips on conventional greens?
Can you be anti anchoring and pro large cups?
new slogan
"conventional and traditional technique to untraditional targets"
that will get the new players pouring in.
Frankly I'd like to finish wringing out the remaining excess players who jumped in because golf was "cool",
and focus on growing the game the way it's always grown, through junior programs, caddie and employee programs,First Tee and similar in school programs, and make room for those who REALLY want to play and embrace all that golf can do for someone, rather than wasting limited resources on players who aren't biting or into other things.
Hold onto the kids we have and provide MORE opportunities for them, rather than trying to appeal to everyone.
Golf is not for everyone-still
-
Market forces are a beautiful thing.
When (if?) a course tries 15 inch cups, we’ll see if it sells or not.
No reason to try to prevent it.
Golfers will vote with their greens fees.
-
Dave,
I don't think they're pitching this to "golfers". The whole idea seems to be that there are non-golfers who would be attracted to a game much like golf except for putting being much, much, much easier.
It's akin to taking the famous Hogan comment about putting ought to be less important and making that the core of an outreach plan to grow "the game" (in the sense of "game" being an activity that takes place with golf clubs and golf balls on golf course-like venues using some but not all of the same rules as golf).
-
David-
Would you mind expanding?
Thanks,
MS
Sure. I assume you were asking for me to expand re caddy programs because I already gave my thoughts on the Big Gulp GolfTM above.
I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with caddies or caddy programs and I have no doubt that some limited number of kids are introduced to the game through caddying. Nonetheless, I just don't see caddy programs by as a realistic solution to grow the game. It is purely a numbers issue. I don't remember where, but I read recently that over 5 million golfers have given up the game since 2000. There aren't enough caddies or caddy programs to make a dent in that, are there?
More generally, there are a relatively small number of clubs have caddy programs, as compared to the number of courses that don't. And many of those employ professional caddies who are already into golf, don't they? So, each year, how many new caddies are exposed through caddying programs? And of these how many would not be exposed to the game otherwise? (Caddying seems like hard work, so my guess is that some kids who want to caddy have an interest in the game.) Whatever the number it must be minuscule when compared to the number of golfers nationwide (around 25 million), or even the number of golfers leaving the game.
In short, it would take many million caddies to grow the game, and there just aren't that many caddy programs.
David-
What you wrote is not wrong--but that doesn't mean that caddie programs are not a form of growing the game.
Your post to me is ironic because its merits are inherently why the "Big Gulp" cups have come about. Golf has never been meant to support housing developments and TaylorMade's 1 year product cycle. But housing developments and 1 year product cycles do need those 5 million golfers we lost to survive.
How many ice hockey housing developments are there? Don't see them trying to make the size of the goal 10 feet wide....
Circling back--- bottom line is if each caddie program out there got 2-3 kids a year access to a golf course, and the lessons learned from working at one, then I think they are doing their job.
Did you caddie as a child, or have any friends or family who did?
Thanks,
Mike Sweeney
-
So Im a new golfer.
I nervously whiff twice, top three more, whiff twice moe and my buddies scream pick it up 200 yards from the green
Thank God for those 15 inch cups.
Here's one vote for pitch and putt
-
Mike, I agree that the idea would impact all aspects of the game, not just putting. Strategy works from the hole back to the tee, and if you are starting off with a 15 inch hole, then some of the strategic options are going to play out differently throughout. Just bashing it up there close and then chipping would seem to be a more viable option with a 15 inch cup.
This is what I was trying to say initially, it's just much much clearer and to the point. I think the 15 inch cup would remove most strategy and everyone would move to bomb and gouge.
Most people don't understand strategy now, at least not consciously, and 15 inch cups would only reinforce their ignorance.
-
Let the market dictate whether the 15 inch cup is a viable way to grow the game. If a golf course adopts it and is successful, more power to them. I just hope it's not at my home course because I still think it's a dumb idea. I think it could be a good fit at the local muni or a 9 hole course.
As for growing the game, maybe golf just isn't meant to be more than a niche sport?
-
Bcowan, Not sure how this keeps getting back to caddies for you, but its irrelevant.
Brian Hoover, I agree with the post above. Not advocating every golf course adopt it. Some should try, some should put both cups out. See below, but I just don't see basing a business model on giving up market share willingly.
JeffW, while I mentioned minorities, your post (and its figurative and literal black and white thinking) sort of misses the point. I am sure we will attract white suburban young adults, teenagers and kids with some money well before the poorer get involved.
I see no value in wringing out the excess golfers. Certainly, existing facilities have to profit to bring any golf at all to the masses. You certainly can't base an industry model on driving away "undesirables" and hope to survive, even if golf effectively limited minorities, women, etc. for centuries. The big question is whether golf can survive as a relic for another generation? Or does it have to change? Or, at least, offer its version of street basketball?
Again, in even framing the question in golf strategy terms, it shows how set we are in our ways to new ideas that let others like golf the way they like it, and us like it the way we like it.
BTW, I agree that shorter courses plus large cups would be good starter grounds. I was impressed with the par 3 Challenge Course at MD. They still had 5 tees, with the shortest being chipping on to the green, second requiring maybe 9 iron, then a few more getting closer and closer to the variety of traditional par 3 lengths. Staff there tells me the chipping tees are popular. They also give new golfers a cheat sheet. Some are afraid to try golf because they don't even understand how to pay, get to the first tee, etc. I know, we laugh, but those are the kinds of things stopping GenX who would maybe try the game, but didn't grow up with caddie experience, golf in the family, etc.
It's funny because I know par 3 courses have never attained much popularity. I am skeptical that they will gain great ground now, but I have to tell you, the shorter course was made every shot doable and relevant to final score. Tee shots and long par 4 and 5 tweener shots really aren't that interesting. Playing all approach shots is sort of like skipping the commercials by using the VCR, or watching the highlights on ESPN without watching the boring 3 hour baseball game, and that kind of "hurry up" mentality, while not part of traditional golf, might appeal to our "yutes" and their shortened attention span......
Again, don't know, but certainly willing to think outside the box rather than just assume golf is best off by staying firmly rooted in the past. If anything, BTW, my gut tells me that a bunch of golfers playing the watered down version would make institutions like the Masters even more revered, as a nod to old school. Sort of like going to the prom to dress up....even with 100 tattoos.
-
Jeff, respectfully, that's where we disagree.
I'm not suggesting an "industry model"
I'm speaking about golf the game, and all it has to offer.
I embrace and accept the tatoos and the piercings, I ask them to embrace golf, not some watered down version of it.
If they want to build courses in their backyards with 15 inch cups, a la pickup basketball, so be it.
-
I can see why a "smaller" game akin to a Par 3 might appeal to some people for the reasons you mention, Jeff. But as you also mention, the profound non-popularity of Par 3 courses (which are not rare) argues that it's not a very large-scale preference if it exists at all.
But with the 15-inch cup thing, I keep getting back to this question. Is your thinking that the particular difficulty of putting to a 4-1/2" cup is a specific turnoff to all those un-golfed masses out there? Because that's what I just don't see.
I honestly can't imagine one single person who does not want to play a given type of course (Par 3, executive, full length, whatever) with a 4-1/2" cup who would per persuaded by hogging out to the hole to triple its diameter. Just who the heck is it you're imagining.
To me it sounds like a gimmick, hoping that some huge wave of publicity would accompany the Big Cup or Big Gulp or whatever. One time gimmicks like that are not going to grow the game...or any alternative form of the game. Reeks of desperation, really. Like stunt casting on a dying sitcom or a minor-league baseball game umpired by guys dressed in gorilla suits or something.
-
I just talked to a couple of my co-workers who have played but rarely play golf. They both said that a 15-in cup does not entice them to play more. Their problems are not on the green, but getting to the green. And for the better player, putting and short game are the more difficult areas, and this eliminates that difficulty. So if anything, this INCREASES the playing gap.
But to Mike's original question, I agree that because putting skills and being in the correct spot on the green are loss important, a lot of strategy is eliminated. There is an enticement to get as close as possible and try to wedge it in, rather than making sure to be on the correct side of the fairway
-
15-inch cups would mean that the 'course' could be used for Foot-golf as well :)
atb
-
I think you guys cannot even see the point. Golf works great for about 8M old white guys like us, for whom it is great just the way it is. Why change? Why should anyone ever want something different that what is traditional golf?
Does the NBA fight street basketball? Stop anyone from playing in the driveway? Does the MLB fight softball? Why shouldn't there be cheaper, easier versions of golf to access for the masses? Heck, if there were, more folks would enjoy the essense of the game - hitting a ball with a club. Maybe some (like Japan) never get out of the Top Golf driving range, and others never get off the 12 hole challenge courses with big cups. So what?
Well, tradition is great, and change is constant. While we all love golf as it is, it is not out of the question that it will be forced to change with the times to survive, even having done quite well for 500 years without a lot of change (although, we can all argue that, and often do when it comes to tech, turf and whatever else) For that matter, is the "golf is meant to be tough?" really true? Or was golf meant to be fun?
I think what the USGA gets stuck on is the "one rules" setup. However, its not like every course will have 15" (or pick a more reasonable size) but that some will offer an alternative. I see a lot of housing courses converting parts of golf to more residential for profit, but also horseshoes, dog parks, skateboard parks, whatever, leaving the 9-12 hole challenge course (or whatever the site dictates) as one recreation option, not the only one. We have so many more recreation options, it could be the "market" will tell developers.
More than that, just as modern courses got more visual because we were the TV generation, I fully expect some design changes for the next "play station" generation. Not sure what it may be, but will center on more tech and more "instant information" to reflect life as it is and will be. Probably more like Top Golf, with computer chips embedded in the ball for total shot link type info on every shot in the players Google Golf Glasses, or something like that.
Of course, none of us can say, but it may be that golf has a tough choice - remain an old world game that a few play in secret, and a few others try every few years on a lark, or get with the times. Most here will protest, but again, none of us can say if golf can stick its head in the sand and survive.
Or, with 15K golf courses, some blend of both. Now, you might be like the USGA guy who said Hack Golf can do whatever they want, but we won't call it golf. Fine, although I think keeping the loose affiliation with golf as the ancestor is probably inevitable (Top Golf.......I am your father......) Or not. Maybe the generations of minorities and poor that have a bad image of golf might be more likely to take it up in some other version called something totally different.
Post of the month. Comedy division.
-
I think you guys cannot even see the point. Golf works great for about 8M old white guys like us, for whom it is great just the way it is. Why change? Why should anyone ever want something different that what is traditional golf?
Does the NBA fight street basketball? Stop anyone from playing in the driveway? Does the MLB fight softball? Why shouldn't there be cheaper, easier versions of golf to access for the masses? Heck, if there were, more folks would enjoy the essense of the game - hitting a ball with a club. Maybe some (like Japan) never get out of the Top Golf driving range, and others never get off the 12 hole challenge courses with big cups. So what?
Is someone out there stopping the golf changes?
-
I don't think "street" basketball was a contrivance of an equipment manufacturer trying to push product.
-
George,
As I mentioned earlier, its mostly tradition, and the USGA and PGA really still in the mindset of preserving golf as it is for those 8M core golfers. Just the reaction here shows the resistance to change by many. And, don't get me wrong, I am one of those 8M who love golf as it is. I was surprised at how much hooting and hollering went on in our little 12 hole match, and no, we weren't drinking. Mentions of video games, tattoos, "you da man" and what not. I can just see how many might love golf in a slightly easier and less stuffy form, and wonder how golf would accommodate that?
David,
I understand your point, but find it a bit cynical. Yes, Taylor Made funds Hack Golf, probably for reasons you mention, although there are street specific basketballs put out by Rawlings, or whoever, probably a tougher synthetic, so they do have some value in increased participation. There is nothing inherently evil in the industry trying to promote participation in what we all agree is a great game.
-
I can just see how many might love golf in a slightly easier and less stuffy form, and wonder how golf would accommodate that?
It's simple, a golf course can make the decision to adopt larger cups, set up the course to play shorter, etc. Nothing is holding this back. If people want these things, then the market will bear it out. It's the free market.
No one is stopping this from happening. But if it makes you feel better to think that, go for it.
-
Brian,
Well, it would certainly need promoting, a la Hack Golf, which it would take off better than a few individual courses adopting it. And, when the USGA say "you can't call it golf" (which an official did) and you get lukewarm reception, it is a barrier. Maybe that's the way it has to go, either a brave individual course (like Monarch Dunes) or a "rogue" organization.
But, for me, its really just a discussion point. Obviously, this site isn't the place to discuss golf evolving, having not being able to get over the fact that architecture moved on from the 1920's.......but golf has changed a lot over the years (generally getting easier, as I have read the outcry when Old Tom converted some fairways to turf, and those said it would be too easy....)
I do believe that others will seek ways to continue to involve more tech, etc. to fashion golf to the tastes of a wider audience. And yes, I believe they will do so for profit, not that there's anything wrong with that. It is just interesting to contemplate how that might happen, even if its not 15 inch cups specifically. If you don't care to participate in a fit of futuristic thinking, so be it. But, no need to be snotty about it either.
I'm not putting any money it, but actually have a few money losing projects we are conducting studies for that might try a more creative solution in their situations, so I could recommend it. I am sure there will be business consultants who will tell them no, no one has done that, but again, time will all tell.
-
There is nothing inherently evil in the industry trying to promote participation in what we all agree is a great game.
The point of my thread was that a 15" cup is not a great game because of how it impacts the "green" design.
Shivas said this recently ... golf would be fun on a giant pool table, but it is way more fun with bumps.
So of course we'd have fun playing a round of 15" golf, but for how long?
And my good friend Don adds "Anyone can putt. People quit the game because they can't hit the ball, not because they can't putt."
-
Mike,
First, I will disagree with Don.....at least I sure can't putt well!
In my recent play with 15" cups, our group holed out a wedge, chipped in a few, and holed several long putts - all for a nickel. I was surprised how fun it was (granted, those nickel bets really made a difference) but the thrill of making those shots was the same, and they happened more frequently. Aren't those the kind of shots that keep you coming back?
I understand the point. Golfers want to shoot their normal score, and don't want the course too easy, or too hard. On the other hand, over 5 centuries scores just haven't gone down for average golfers either....we know increasing tech hasn't helped, IF we want some better scores (not all do) then maybe its time to look a different direction. Cup size, course length, etc. could all be one way to do it. Not sure which is the best. And, do we know the inherent difficulty of golf is currently "just right?" In perfect balance?
To answer your strategic question, presuming a regulation course went with bigger cups, does cup size really affect how close I aim? Maybe. In general, it would make us all more conservative playing to the middle of the green, since easier putts reduce the need to be within say 8 feet for a reasonable chance at birdie. On the other hand, if your opponent hits it close in this theoretical nickel a hole game, do you not need to consider aiming it a little closer yourself?
What about playing for your personal best, even if not in a competition? If you scored twelve straight 75's, would you aim closer to attain a 74? Don't know how everyone would react, but in some ways, the essence of golf would remain.
-
Any change in so-called strategy would be minimized by the fact that so few golfers think about anything other than aiming at the flag anyway.
But aside from the interesting hypothetical question of how "strategy" might differ on a course with huge holes, there's still the unanswered real-world question of how would the game be improved. It might or might not make the game by played in a slightly different manner but what problem is the proposal addressing? What shortcoming of the game will be overcome by making the hole larger? What about the game will be better, rather than just different?
-
I don't think the 15" cup has anything to do with growing the game. I think it is a misguided attempt by some in the industry to hold on to the marginal golfers who probably aren't long for the game anyway.
Does anyone believe that people are saying the following:
"Hey, Let's go play golf."
"Nah, golf sucks."
"They've got big holes now."
"Oh, Ok, Let's go!"
-
In the hypothetical world where we were trying to (re)design courses that preserved the game of golf as we know it, but with 15-inch cups, I think the approach to design and green surrounds depends on your exact goals.
We know from the Snead-era experiment that better putters would improve their competitive edge with larger holes.
We know that larger holes would make putting easier for everyone, and chipping in much more common among better players.
If your goal was to retain the current par/scoring average for a golf course, you'd have to make the green much more difficult. Green surrounds would have to become more penal, too, to reduce the frequent one-hop-and-in shots better players would learn to make. (Beginners, of course, would fare little better with chipping and pitching than they do now.)
If your goal was to preserve scoring differentials, you would need to flatten everything and reduce the severity of hazards, to allow worse players a chance against the long hole-outs of better players (substitute "players" for "chippers" or "putters" if you'd like). You would also probably want to make the green bigger.
If, however, your goal was to preserve strategies [as in Mike's original question], I think that hazards would need to be exaggerated in severity and proximity to the green. This would make better players think more carefully before trying difficult shots with the hope of rolling it within 7.5 inches of the flag.
In the end, designing strategic courses under a 15-inch-hole regime would turn beginners away from the game. As has been noted repeatedly in this thread, beginners tend to putt okay but whiff and top their full swings often.
I think there's some connection here with the appendix to Geo. Thomas' book, in which he discusses the advantages of a scoring system where putts only count for half a shot. That's sufficiently different from the topic of this thread that I'll save thoughts on it for another time.
JB
-
Got to thinking about this, but has it ever been written down as to just how exactly golf cups came to be 4.25"?
I think about the story of the width of the railroad tracks somehow deriving from ancient roman chariots, and being maintained over some overlapping transport modes until it was sort of more or less adopted at 4'8.5" for US railroads. Sure, there were some broader and narrower gauges over the years, but that was standardized. Someone studied it and found that it wasn't too far off the best value from an engineering standpoint. If memory serves, perhaps a few inches wider would have provided more stability for the least amount of cost.
Sorry to ramble, but it makes me wonder if it was simply the width of a tin can, shovel, etc. or if Old Tom and others put some thought it in. For that matter, was it standardized later? I am sure someone has written this story, but frankly, I can't seem to recall reading it. If any place would be able to conjure it up, I am sure someone here can!
Not hard to imagine some current statster would find a way to prove pro tour cups ought to be slightly less, and am course cups maybe slightly wider, depending on whosever definition of "ideal" is used. He would get some free publicity in many quarters that's for sure.
-
Got to thinking about this, but has it ever been written down as to just how exactly golf cups came to be 4.25"?
I think about the story of the width of the railroad tracks somehow deriving from ancient roman chariots, and being maintained over some overlapping transport modes until it was sort of more or less adopted at 4'8.5" for US railroads. Sure, there were some broader and narrower gauges over the years, but that was standardized. Someone studied it and found that it wasn't too far off the best value from an engineering standpoint. If memory serves, perhaps a few inches wider would have provided more stability for the least amount of cost.
Sorry to ramble, but it makes me wonder if it was simply the width of a tin can, shovel, etc. or if Old Tom and others put some thought it in. For that matter, was it standardized later? I am sure someone has written this story, but frankly, I can't seem to recall reading it. If any place would be able to conjure it up, I am sure someone here can!
Not hard to imagine some current statster would find a way to prove pro tour cups ought to be slightly less, and am course cups maybe slightly wider, depending on whosever definition of "ideal" is used. He would get some free publicity in many quarters that's for sure.
Jeff - found what you were looking for:
"The children of the chosen did arrive at Mount Hue & Cry and the Mount was covered by cloud for six days and on the seventh day the leader of the children went into the midst of the cloud and remained in the Mount for forty days and forty nights, and in the morning of the forty first day of their encampment there were thunders and lightnings and the leader appeared from amidst the thick cloud upon the Mount, and the voice of a trumpet came upon them exceedingly loud as they assembled at the base of the Mount and the Voice of Heaven spoke, "Thou shalt deposit thy ball in a round hole four and one quarter wide."
The first keeper of the green was struck dead by lightning when he dug a hole four and a quarter feet wide.
-
It would be MUCH simpler to slow the greens down than to enlarge the cup. And it keeps strategy intact. The USGA / PGA should maximize green speeds at 10. It will speed up the game just as much as enlarging the cup.
-
George,
As I mentioned earlier, its mostly tradition, and the USGA and PGA really still in the mindset of preserving golf as it is for those 8M core golfers. Just the reaction here shows the resistance to change by many. And, don't get me wrong, I am one of those 8M who love golf as it is. I was surprised at how much hooting and hollering went on in our little 12 hole match, and no, we weren't drinking. Mentions of video games, tattoos, "you da man" and what not. I can just see how many might love golf in a slightly easier and less stuffy form, and wonder how golf would accommodate that?
David,
I understand your point, but find it a bit cynical. Yes, Taylor Made funds Hack Golf, probably for reasons you mention, although there are street specific basketballs put out by Rawlings, or whoever, probably a tougher synthetic, so they do have some value in increased participation. There is nothing inherently evil in the industry trying to promote participation in what we all agree is a great game.
Jeff,
When was the last time you played a muni? Many of the younger folk on here aspire for some change in golf stuffiness, but to use change to alter a hole to 4 times or so its original size is bumper bowling. Bumper bowling is giving a kid an A on a test when he got a D, sorry it is dumbing down of society. I really think you should throw some money at this stupid Idea. I also think you and the CEO should tee it sometime at a Muni. I doubt you or the Taylor Made CEO have played a muni especially in the inner city, and I would love for you to ask players about this stupid idea. Jeff, the FED is working on negative interest rates, then Archies can get back to building water falls and or housing development courses that so many NON GCA folks hate!
-
Got to thinking about this, but has it ever been written down as to just how exactly golf cups came to be 4.25"?
I think about the story of the width of the railroad tracks somehow deriving from ancient roman chariots, and being maintained over some overlapping transport modes until it was sort of more or less adopted at 4'8.5" for US railroads. Sure, there were some broader and narrower gauges over the years, but that was standardized. Someone studied it and found that it wasn't too far off the best value from an engineering standpoint. If memory serves, perhaps a few inches wider would have provided more stability for the least amount of cost.
Sorry to ramble, but it makes me wonder if it was simply the width of a tin can, shovel, etc. or if Old Tom and others put some thought it in. For that matter, was it standardized later? I am sure someone has written this story, but frankly, I can't seem to recall reading it. If any place would be able to conjure it up, I am sure someone here can!
Not hard to imagine some current statster would find a way to prove pro tour cups ought to be slightly less, and am course cups maybe slightly wider, depending on whosever definition of "ideal" is used. He would get some free publicity in many quarters that's for sure.
I've read that a piece of pipe with an O.D. of 4.25" was used to line a crumbling hole at St. Andrews and was 'adopted' as the standard. It became the official size in 1891, the first year it was mentioned in the rules.
No science, just happenstance.
p.s. I'd like to follow the hole cutter around and see how many pieces the 15" plug breaks into when he lifts it out of the green, and the jig-saw puzzle intricacy of placing the pieces into the old hole. Should be some real fun to watch on sand based greens ;D
-
BCowan,
You have asked me that a few times now, and really, I am a muni golfer! (granted mostly for free on muni's I have designed or remodeled, but muni nonetheless) And I do make a point to play with Joe Sixpack, women golfers, etc., rather than "serious" golfers, always looking to see how they would play a course and make it more suitable to their game.
I have played with some golf execs on these courses. I have relayed this before, but one told me "We have never had a complaint when we made a public course easier......" So, I think I have made more study of what the average golfer in America likes, needs, etc. than you, based on your posts. I could be wrong.
For the record, I have 2 flowing streams and maybe 3 small waterfalls on my 50 new course designs (not all of my doing....and one only at the clubhouse, not on the course) Not sure where you get your perception of me, or golf architecture in general, but the fact that Trump builds waterfalls really has absolutely nothing to do with the average golf course in America. Throwing out whacked out ideas as part of any discussion usually isn't productive, as witnessed on our national political scene, where such ideas seem to drive the discussion.
I get it...you are one of the 8M core golfers that see no need for change, and I respect that. But, those CEO's who (apparently shamelessly) trying to make a living in golf need to get a broader base of opinions to make decisions on. BTW, I am not sold on 15" cups and wonder how they came up with that number, just as I wondered how the 4.25 size came about.
Jim, thanks. That rings a bell. Interesting to note, as mentioned before if somehow science today could determine what, if any benefit could be had with different size cups, given not much thought was put in to what has been a standard now for over 120 years (or more) I'm not sure what that answer might be, but it occurs that if selected merely because that was the size of a pipe laying around, it might NOT be 4.25"!
-
Jeff,
When you think about it the original unlined hole that was crumbling was most likely very near the 4.25 mark. If it was much larger they'd have gone looking for a bigger pipe. ;)
....and most of the stories of doubles and triples and quadruple bogeys that are retold to me aren't usually about the green, they're mostly about the horrors of getting there. As those operators said, make the course easier (if you must), so I say leave the cup alone. Doing the former should balance out the challenge of the latter.
-
Jim, I understand where the bogey plus comes from, and holing a long putt to save 8 is probably like putting whip cream on a turd.....still not tasty. However, golfers all talk about the "one great shot that brings them back" despite all the misery. If some courses want to offer that, and some golfers prefer it that way, I have no problems with that.
I will try to ask Monarch Dunes how many of their challenge course players play to the big hole, rather than the small one, since they have both cut on their greens. Its actually a perfect combo - a regulation course that is quite nice, and with not enough land left over, but a desire for fairway lots, they settled on the 12 hole challenge course. Seems to be quite popular with the residents, but my sample size was small at one, perfect, sun kissed California Day where the weather could only have been better if dollar bills were dropping out of the sky. That and good company might have skewed my enthusiasm for the place. Would be interesting to see which course I would play if I went back.....
I also think (seen this stat somewhere, don't recall where) that the average golfer averages closer to 3 putts than 2. While 15" may be a bit clownish, I still think the one rules mentality may have a short shelf life. You could make a case that since the rules suggest 2 putts as standard, they should experiment with cup size until the average number of putts by handicap golfers is 2, not 3. Hey, maybe the "tour courses" would end up getting smaller cups.....
Probably, someone will file a lawsuit under ADA or something to make that happen! Just kidding (kind of) and musing on some out of the box thinking.....
-
If you try to titrate the Rules of Golf to produce a given scoring outcome for "average" golfers you'll quickly run up against the need for not two sets of Rules but hundreds. And good luck defining that average or typical golfer anyway.
Again, what supposed "problem" are you grinding away so hard at finding a "solution" for with this cup thing? At this point I have to imagine that you're just casting about for any random change at all. Because cup diameter might have an effect on scores but I do not believe it would change the way the game is played or who the game appeals to at all. Or at least not to a sufficient degree anyone would notice after their first three or four rounds with a different hole.
-
Getting back to the original post, I'm not sure that 15-inch cups would fundamentally change the strategy of how a player attacks a course. I do think it would increase the incentive to fire at risky pins, as players would feel like they had a better chance of holing out and thus more potential reward. Then again, there's less given up by playing conservatively, as making long putts will become much easier.
It might actually be interesting in that it could add strategy and risk/reward to putting. Players could choose to take bold lines on cross-slope putts to try and "bang" them into the hole, knowing that a miss will leave 15 or 20 feet on the return putt, or they could hit softer lags that try to get cozy but have less chance of dropping in the cup. Only the world's best putters on the world's fastest greens face options like that today, and usually only defensively. It would be fun if average putters could face the same decisions and try to play a little offense by making bold charges at the hole. I also think there's a real chance that people would be more apt to enjoy greens with serious slope than they are today.
Of course, it's all irrelevant. I don't see 15 inch cups catching on, and I don't see them growing the game. But if golfers in the 1800s had standardized the hole at 15 inches instead of 4 1/2, the results may have been interesting. I suspect mini-golf would never have taken off because it would just be too easy and either require a ton more space of be really boring. In real golf, players would be far more aggressive on the greens than we see with today's nervous, twitchy, defensive putting. I'm not sure I agree with Mike's original statement that greens would get bigger. Given how easily good putters could one-putt from longer distances while weaker putters lose five or six strokes over the course of a round by two-putting from 30 or 40 feet, I suspect some courses would combat this by going to extra small greens to minimize the number of long putts on which good putters would have such a distinct advantage.
-
I am not in favor of 15-inch cups, but as usual in such theoretical discussion, everyone is missing the big picture.
If we had 15-inch cups, and putting was reduced as a factor and it was easier for good golfers to chip in, then we could reduce the level of greens maintenance dramatically. Fast greens would be totally unimportant, since missing ten feet past the hole would still probably result in making the next putt. In fact, slow greens would be more likely to increase the difficulty of the course. So the cost would come down considerably.
It is the same oversight as with the "box grooves" controversy many years ago, which would have necessitated less fairway maintenance, if only anyone had thought of it that way.
-
Brent,
I guess I am saying that I wouldn't be against two sets of rules, agree 10 sets is too many. Not trying to hit any specific score, but think in the modern world (and I know I will get blasted by Melvyn on Facebook.....) the recreational golfer for the most part needs easier courses than we have been giving them.
It just seems like the rest of the world is diversifying - restaurants in nearly any cuisine, more hobby choices of all kinds, etc. In general, the world is catering to more and more specific subsets of participants much more narrowly, and golf seems to be fixated on "championship, par 72, 7200 yard courses that get awards."
Forgetting the 15" cup as a specific idea (sorry for thread drift, Mike.....) I believe just tweaking course labels/expectations to championship, club play (or some similar name) recreation, seniors, beginners, etc. and removing back tees at some courses (used by 1% anyway) might be a good thing. If some of those have dual cups or big cups, and others convert to some alternate form of golf because it does attract more, and perhaps more diverse players, then I am okay with that too.
Of course, if any of these off shoot versions of the game caught on, then each could just have its own set of singular rules.
-
"There are vandals in Britain who have failed to grasp the tradition and spirit of the game to such an extent that they would enlarge the holes on the putting greens."
Alister MacKenzie, The Spirit of St. Andrews
"A man's skill or finesse in approaching and putting should not be neutralized in this way."
-
It just seems like the rest of the world is diversifying - restaurants in nearly any cuisine, more hobby choices of all kinds, etc. In general, the world is catering to more and more specific subsets of participants much more narrowly, and golf seems to be fixated on "championship, par 72, 7200 yard courses that get awards."
The golf course architecture industry may be about that, but golf sure isn't. I can name a dozen courses within 30 minutes of me that don't give a crap about anything in your last sentence and they've been around and thriving for decades. And that's where recreational golfers truly play, not at Bandon, Sand Hills, Pebble, Pinehurst, or almost anywhere else we discuss on here.
The biggest impediments to the game for recreational golfer are time and money, not how difficult the game is. That doesn't mean golf courses can't experiment with ways to bring in new golfers, however.
-
It just seems like the rest of the world is diversifying - restaurants in nearly any cuisine, more hobby choices of all kinds, etc. In general, the world is catering to more and more specific subsets of participants much more narrowly, and golf seems to be fixated on "championship, par 72, 7200 yard courses that get awards."
The golf course architecture industry may be about that, but golf sure isn't. I can name a dozen courses within 30 minutes of me that don't give a crap about anything in your last sentence and they've been around and thriving for decades. And that's where recreational golfers truly play, not at Bandon, Sand Hills, Pebble, Pinehurst, or almost anywhere else we discuss on here.
The biggest impediments to the game for recreational golfer are time and money, not how difficult the game is. That doesn't mean golf courses can't experiment with ways to bring in new golfers, however.
+1
-
George,
I would beg to disagree that the difficulty of the game is NOT a major impediment to starting, along with its related feelings of embarrassment, potential harassment, etc. As I mentioned earlier, Monarch Dunes put a left handed club in the rental sets. If you want to recall how difficult it is to start out golfing, try hitting a shot or two lefty!
I do agree that most courses that comprise Golf in America are a far cry from the Bandon's etc. that we like to talk about. But as for being designed for average or new golfers? Well, its all over the board, agreed, but even in the 50 year battle to design the forward tees from the typical female point of view, most fall far short.
-
Things I believe would do more to make the game easier for beginners than having a larger hole:
1) Shorter courses
2) Wider fairways
3) Grass depressions instead of bunkers
4) Shorter/thinner rough
5) Fairways cut longer to put some "cushion" under the ball
6) Fewer forced-carry water hazards
7) More lateral areas marked as "lateral hazards"
8 ) Large bailout areas either short, left or right of well bunkered greens
9 ) Bunkers treated as "through the green" without grooming but you can ground your club or play practice strokes
I could go on and on before ever getting down to about 38) Cut bigger holes for putting
-
I just wanted to make some of you aware that The Fifth Major has been known to include a par three with two - can you believe it? cups cut in a single green. It is an afront to tradition and the spirit of the game. Is that golf? Oh no, it is not. However, with apologies to C. S. Lewis, "To put it at the very lowest, it must be great fun."
CJ and Eric, I apologize if this comment results in massive last minute withdrawals from the event.
Mike
Also, Brent - great idea on #8. What newbie doesn't relish the opportunity to hit a high pitch over a greenside bunker from a tight lie.
-
Things I believe would do more to make the game easier for beginners than having a larger hole:
1) Shorter courses
2) Wider fairways
3) Grass depressions instead of bunkers
4) Shorter/thinner rough
5) Fairways cut longer to put some "cushion" under the ball
6) Fewer forced-carry water hazards
7) More lateral areas marked as "lateral hazards"
8 ) Large bailout areas either short, left or right of well bunkered greens
9 ) Bunkers treated as "through the green" without grooming but you can ground your club or play practice strokes
I could go on and on before ever getting down to about 38) Cut bigger holes for putting
And #38 would probably only recommend a little bigger, not 4 times the size...
Jeff, I'm one of the worst golfers on here. As my friend John Kav likes to point out, it's entirely by choice: I'm the one who prioritizes other things (time with my son, wife, working) above going to the range or taking a lesson or just plain playing more.
And I've played with many many golfers who are worse than me, who love the game just as much, or more. Heck, most of the people I play with at munis are worse than I am, and play more and love the game every bit as much, or more.
Interestingly, the biggest impediments to getting better are also time and money, though to a far lesser degree than playing. Golf is a very costly sport. That's the main reason I didn't play when I was younger; I understood the time and money commitment was greater than I could "afford" - not in a dollar sense, in an investment sense. When I started playing, I immediately regretted not starting earlier.
Overcoming the reasons for not starting would be the best way to get new people involved. The stuff on and around the green had literally zero impact on whether or not I became hooked on the game. Call me crazy, I don't think I'm that much different than others in that regard.
I could make a list like Brent's - Encourage 6/9/12 hole rounds. Offer free lessons. Adopt UK maintenance practices. Give away your old clubs! Bring a buddy to the game, for crying out loud!!
Making the cup bigger wouldn't even make #38 on my list.
-
Brent and George,
Don't disagree with anything on your list. And I would put 6/9/12 hole rounds right in there near the top. I am trying harder to all those things in design (and was rarely the biggest offender anyway) What I like about the 6/9/12 is it removes the stigma of not going all 18 holes. I have never felt compelled to finish a round if tired, rushed, or not playing well. (okay, call me Vijay, but I am not competing)
But, I do note that the common thread on all of those is that they reduce the potential for really bad shots (like 6 shots in the sand bunker...what was fun when I played the large cups - and what is different about the concept from the others is it encourages/allows more wildly successful shots (i.e. long putts, chips, etc.) These are the kind that bring us back, not "well, I hacked it a little less than usual today". There was just a lot of whooping and hollering in our group of normally reserved golfers. Whooping and hollering felt pretty good!
In fact, the very definition of success on a golf holes is finally getting the ball in the hole. If you want to encourage success - albeit watered down in some minds, but not those who are just beginners - go right to the core issue of helping get the ball in the hole. Surprisingly, its only the knee knockers that go away (and those aren't particularly fun anyway) and you still have to figure the break on a putt of any length over certainly 10 feet, and maybe 6 or so, depending on contour.
And, might I say, you really feel like a jerk missing a 6 footer on the lip of a 15" cup! but, it happens.
-
Ah, so in the end it's all about the scorecard!
In that case do whatever you want with the cup. Just make a local rule that your second putt is good. Take one whack at the hole (whether normal size or ginormous) and if it doesn't go in pick it up.
-
I suppose you would have talked such trash to Mac, since he proposed not piling up a big score was a good design goal? And that your 37 changes aren't an effort to get scores lower?
Actually, if you had reading comprehension above a Pat Mucci level, you would realize that it was about more exciting shots, which is the fun of golf.....not total score. At best, the bigger hole would save 18 shots, probably less (maybe a few more for a hole out, but it will still be rare) Probably more cost effective for any course that wants to try it than growing more fairway, removing bunkers, etc., so it has that going for it!
But, I get it. Again, most of us here are part of the 8M who love golf as it is. And, apparently, no one else is in the mood for some Friday out of the box thinking, all of which is fine with me. I don't really see large cups as a wholesale change in golf, but after playing them once, figure it couldn't hurt if 5-10% of the courses try them, either as a dual cup arrangement, or a permanent (until they change their mind again) replacement.
Then, keep the rest of the course the same. Who wants fewer bunkers on a normal course? Part of what makes golf golf, as much as the cup size. Part of the fun at the challenge course was that the par 3's WERE designed to regulation standard, not some dumbed down version. And, I can say that from, say 195 yards, the bigger cup sure didn't affect MY strategy as much as hazards, wind, etc. Of course, I usually aim for the center of the green anyway....just not good enough to butter cut it in to some tight pin position.
-
Ah, so in the end it's all about the scorecard!
In that case do whatever you want with the cup. Just make a local rule that your second putt is good. Take one whack at the hole (whether normal size or ginormous) and if it doesn't go in pick it up.
Get rid of the scorecard.
"I believe that one gets far more fun in playing a match for five or ten dollars and licking one's opponent by lofting a stymie on the last green than you can ever get in taking your score."
Alister MacKenzie The Spirit of St. Andrews
-
If we had 15-inch cups, and putting was reduced as a factor and it was easier for good golfers to chip in, then we could reduce the level of greens maintenance dramatically. Fast greens would be totally unimportant, since missing ten feet past the hole would still probably result in making the next putt. In fact, slow greens would be more likely to increase the difficulty of the course. So the cost would come down considerably.
As a hypothetical syllogism that is correct. But as reality it wouldn't matter because so many people would quit the game that the sport would be left for dead.
-
Jeff,
I'm fine with out of the box thinking. And I am TOTALLY talking about the non-eight-million. I know the eight million don't give a toss for a 15" cup, I've been talking all along about people who have either never tried the game at all or who have tried it an not liked it enough to play regularly.
Can you in all honesty say you believe there is someone out there who has never played golf but who would come play if the cup were bigger? Do non-golfers even know what size the cup is to begin with.
And likewise I'm not buying that any of the millions who have tried golf and not stuck with it are telling you that "I'd have liked it a lot more if putting were easier". Never heard that in my life.
So I'm good with out of the box ideas THAT HAVE ANY SALIENCE TO NON-GOLFERS. The straw-man of a 15" cup is not such an idea. It is as best a gimmick that golfers might find fun as a change or pace. Once. Or maybe even once a year. For non-golfers? You've got to be joking.
-
George,
I would beg to disagree that the difficulty of the game is NOT a major impediment to starting, along with its related feelings of embarrassment, potential harassment, etc. As I mentioned earlier, Monarch Dunes put a left handed club in the rental sets. If you want to recall how difficult it is to start out golfing, try hitting a shot or two lefty!
...
Any beginner can probably putt nearly as well left handed or right handed. Putting 15" cups out there for beginners is just totally misguided, unless you give them tennis racquet sized club heads, and a tennis ball.
The difficulty is hitting the little ball with the little clubhead at anything more than putting clubhead speed.
Just putting out 15" cups for beginners is silly.
-
John Paul Newport will be doing an article on this subject in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal. He played this format and it will be interesting hearing his point of view.
-
I just wanted to make some of you aware that The Fifth Major has been known to include a par three with two - can you believe it? cups cut in a single green. It is an afront to tradition and the spirit of the game. Is that golf? Oh no, it is not. However, with apologies to C. S. Lewis, "To put it at the very lowest, it must be great fun."
CJ and Eric, I apologize if this comment results in massive last minute withdrawals from the event.
Actually there are three, though I'm pretty sure no one (deliberately) plays for the back pin position of the three on #10.
I told Chris last year we could have more fun with that hole, by allowing a deduction of a half stroke when the ball is played to the back pin. Would make for some interesting strategies before/during the play of the hole.
I did hear a couple people grumbling a bit about the multiple flags thing since it isn't "proper golf", but it is just one hole, and Eric always says the Fifth Major is about fun, first and foremost.
-
Front page of the new York Times
"In a hole, golf considers digging a wider one"
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Talk about wreaking of desperation.
trots out NGF statistics about losing 5 million players in the last decade.
Frist of all this organization's dubious statistics led those who bought their crap to believe we needed hundreds of shitty courses on every corner, complete with subdivision.
Second, I would argue that "golf is cool" crowd that jumped on the bandwagon 10-15 years ago were never going to stay in and contributed to others quitting by clogging up courses with their "cool" attitudes, and little knowledge of anything else, and other nonsense.
Golf is not cool.
It's a fantastic game and a fantastic opportunity for kids, grownups and seniors alike to participate and thrive in a positive, challenging outdoor enviroment.
That's not for everyone as many people don't want a challenge, don't want to be outdoors, and aren't positive.
I'm OK with leaving them behind, the same as I have no problem leaving some behind in the "no child left behind" programs that lower standards and suck down all....but I digress.........
This article depresses the crap out of me and I find it embarrassing, particularly the comments from the President of the PGA of America.
Go out and do your jobs-help a kid, introduce a friend, run top intro and access programs for all, but let's not dumb it down to include those who simply should do something else that's easier, who should instead step up to the challenge, rather than have the bar lowered to them.
Anyone who knows me knows I'm all for fun ways to play golf, fun games for kids, fun tournaments, and I administrate one of the most nonstuffy unconventional golf cultures in America, but at the end of the day we still promote golf and its ideals.
Interesting that they use a player who's about 3-4 8 foot putts short of having a couple majors to promote a larger hole, and I find his comments that his FIVE YEAR OLD quit the game because he failed absolutely laughable.
So he'd still be playing if the hole was four times as big?
I have no desire to see golf become like other sports. They should aspire to be what golf is all about, not the other way around.
-
Front page of the new York Times
"In a hole, golf considers digging a wider one"
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Talk about wreaking of desperation.
trots out NGF statistics about losing 5 million players in the last decade.
Frist of all this organization's dubious statistics led those who bought their crap to believe we needed hundreds of shitty courses on every corner, complete with subdivision.
Second, I would argue that "golf is cool" crowd that jumped on the bandwagon 10-15 years ago were never going to stay in and contributed to others quitting by clogging up courses with their "cool" attitudes, and little knowledge of anything else, and other nonsense.
Golf is not cool.
It's a fantastic game and a fantastic opportunity for kids, grownups and seniors alike to participate and thrive in a positive, challenging outdoor enviroment.
That's not for everyone as many people don't want a challenge, don't want to be outdoors, and aren't positive.
I'm OK with leaving them behind, the same as I have no problem leaving some behind in the "no child left behind" programs that lower standards and suck down all....but I digress.........
This article depresses the crap out of me and I find it embarrassing, particularly the comments from the President of the PGA of America.
Go out and do your jobs-help a kid, introduce a friend, run top intro and access programs for all, but let's not dumb it down to include those who simply should do something else that's easier, who should instead step up to the challenge, rather than have the bar lowered to them.
Anyone who knows me knows I'm all for fun ways to play golf, fun games for kids, fun tournaments, and I administrate one of the most nonstuffy unconventional golf cultures in America, but at the end of the day we still promote golf and its ideals.
Interesting that they use a player who's about 3-4 8 foot putts short of having a couple majors to promote a larger hole, and I find his comments that his FIVE YEAR OLD quit the game because he failed absolutely laughable.
So he'd still be playing if the hole was four times as big?
I have no desire to see golf become like other sports. They should aspire to be what golf is all about, not the other way around.
Great post!!
-
I am very curious about this. Most from the fact that most of us are in the minority on what we like and don't like. Most of my friends don't agree with me.
-
I just txted my GF who is at work and asked her if a 15 inch cup would encourage her to take up golf. her reply:
"That is just dumb. People who don't play golf aren't playing because of the size of the hole in my opinion''.
-
John Paul Newport will be doing an article on this subject in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal. He played this format and it will be interesting hearing his point of view.
He's now an ardent fan:
If you're a golf purist, feel free at this point to sputter: "That's not golf! That's a perversion of golf! Maybe so. But I'm a golf purist, and I can't wait to play with 15-inch holes again. Would I want to play every round that way? Not at all. But I can see doing it every once in a while, at group events like corporate outings or in special designated tournaments at my local club or muni. And I'd love to see kids, beginners and disheartened casual golfers have access to 15-inch golf, as an option, to make the game more inviting.
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304311204579508114039254966?mg=reno64-wsj (http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304311204579508114039254966?mg=reno64-wsj)
More positive coverage in the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/sports/golf/in-a-hole-golf-considers-digging-a-wider-one.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/sports/golf/in-a-hole-golf-considers-digging-a-wider-one.html)
Solid job by the TMAC in rolling it out like this -- first the launch at the PGA Show and now an on-course demo round the day after the Masters.
-
Bcowan,
So, your girlfriend is saying size matters? Who knew? (insert smiley) Hope you didn't mis-speak and tell her you wished her cups were bigger and would make play more fun......tip your waitresses folks!
In my recent very fun and positive big cup experience, I agree it wasn't really just that. It was the shorter, but fully featured par 3 course, the odd number of holes, faster game, and fun of playing a different game, but MD really tries to promote new golfers, making the whole experience something they can understand, grasp, and not be daunted by. And, there were still some old school golf factors involved - I was playing with good friends, weather was perfect, small stakes gambling, and just the one time difference from playing "standard" golf.
I have always also had the untested theory that golf could increase popularity with all sorts of other variations, based on schedule, which of course, it has always done to some extent, with ladies day, etc. I can see some courses doing "large cup Tuesdays" or "Gangsome Wednesdays (large group play) couples Thursday, (or for the racier, "Mistress Mondays) Match Play, Scrambles, pick your partner, stranger golf where you must play with someone new, etc, or any other number of interesting events to vary the game up just a bit, not change its entire core.
So, I agree, just putting big cups out there on a traditional course wouldn't increase golfers trying the game out. For borderline golfers (well, not a marketing term the game is likely to embrace!) they would have to have some interest anyway, and the real key is to reduce uncertainty and fear that many have in taking up golf.
Which is to say, the best way is still to have family members or friends who play and help introduce you to the game. But, I still think making it more of a hoop and holler type experience will perhaps widen the appeal. Speed play with shorter courses, etc. as mentioned. And, I still think some more high tech, such as instant shot feedback via chips in the ball or other, will appeal to the video game generation who crave instant feedback.
Of course, also not the type of thing traditionalists hanging around here want to hear, but just me wondering how golf may be forced to adapt to changing times. I think it has always reflected the culture and its values, and to the extent those seem to have changed, along with the life dynamic (less time, more tech, etc.) I think it will change somehow, and may have to change to stay relevant to any meaningful % of the population.
Of course, I really don't know, and also, still sorry for thread jacking this one a bit from Mike Nuzzo's original more specific intent. Oh well, it happens. Just musing here.
-
I just txted my GF who is at work and asked her if a 15 inch cup would encourage her to take up golf. her reply:
"That is just dumb. People who don't play golf aren't playing because of the size of the hole in my opinion''.
hasn't she been telling you size doesn't matter for years?..... ;) ;D
-
If they want to play 15 inch holes, they are welcome to come play my course every frozen or super sloppy wet day in the winter. We have big buckets cut in the fairway short of the green to keep people off the green then.
It's the only way I've broken 80. The single digit handicap that plays with my band of 20 handicappers complains bitterly about us being able to beat him on the big buckets, because we can get up and down far more often than normal.
-
Late to this, haven't read all the responses. My two cents:
I've never met a more forgiving golfer than the beginning golfer. He hacks it around, well aware that he isn't any good; consequently, he expects high scores and doesn't blame the game or certainly the architecture for that. (I've played with beginners on courses with slope ratings from 115 to 145, and their reactions are always the same.) Some come back to play again and again, for lots of reasons I suppose: the walk/exercise, the challenge, the fun of that one great shot. Many others don't, as there are plenty of other things to spend time and money on. But if they don't, it's not because the game is too hard or the architecture is too challenging (or the cup too small). I'm not sure of anything else, but of that I'm pretty sure. Best to frame discussions on this topic around the casual golfer -- and then while we're at it focus on price and time instead.
Peter
-
I wouldn't play a game of HORSE at an 8 foot rim and I sure as hell won't putt to a sewer cover.
-
Don't get me wrong.
I'm all for events where they use 15 inch cups, the same as I enjoy longest drive, closest to the pin, flag tournaments,scrambles etc.
I simply fail to see how larger cups will attract any new players.(or at least no more than any other fun format)
an entertaining format for those who already play, just like all the other formats.
that said, how many times have you been to an outing where it was a scramble and you or someone else was pissed that you didn't get to play your own ball?
How about you show up at Oakmont and they've put in 15 inch holes for the outing to quickly shoo you out of the way.
It just seems like a poor allocation of limited resources.
I'd rather see the resources allocated to to promoting all golf IS, not what it isn't.
-
Brauer,
I'd love to see you go into the inner cities of America's finest and replace the 10ft Basketball hops with 8 ft rims, tell them that you are trying to grow the game. If you do this, please videotape it for us.
Also, I'd love for you to cut all the mickey mouse holes on all the greens, instead of the poor asst keeper who has to cut those with his/her eyes rolling and cursing under their breath.
As Donald Ross said, beware of the guy with the tape measure. ''It's in the way that you use it, boy don't you know''- Clapton.
-
My first comment, and I've only read a few of the prior ones . . . . 15" cups, it seems to me, would reduce the importance of green strategy, and green strategy should be something much easier for a beginner to learn than hitting the ball long and straight. So, my answer to bringing more people to the game would be to encourage playing from shorter tees. Now, that would be a problem for the folks who produce and advertize the "longest ball" and "the long-hitting" driver. If length was de-emphasized as the essence of golf (which it isn't), I'd think more people might take it up, or keep it up. That having been said, there are only so many who are going to like to play golf in any event. I don't like to fish - tried it and don't like it. Putting a zillion hungry trout in a small pond for me to fish in isn't going to make me like it any better even though I'd "catch" a lot more fish.
-
It looks like the people more open to the idea of 15" cups are those that make their living from the sport. I've made my peace with the fact that the game has peaked and I'll go down with the ship but I recognize that desperate times call for desperate measures.
-
I've got nothing against desperate measures. Just stupid desperate measures with no connection to reality.
If the industry is really that desperate and willing to try anything maybe they could try doing some meaningful market research and finding out what particular barriers are keeping the "next million" from taking up the game. Then hopefully they'll find a couple of those salient barriers that they can actually change.
But I suspect the problem is, to the extent any such research has been done, the industry has not found a way to address the barriers that really matter. So they're moving on to stuff that's easy to change...whether it is a barrier or not. It's a classic mistake, right up there with starting land wars in Asia or going up against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
-
But I suspect the problem is, to the extent any such research has been done, the industry has not found a way to address the barriers that really matter.
I think the industry had a chance to really grow the game in the 80s and 90s and pretty much blew it. They went for the short money and so we got $195 green fees, 6 month equipment product cycles, golf courses as a real estate feature, CCFADs with miles of concrete so that cart rentals could be a profit center, etc.
-
Brauer,
I'd love to see you go into the inner cities of America's finest and replace the 10ft Basketball hops with 8 ft rims, tell them that you are trying to grow the game. If you do this, please videotape it for us.
I laughed out loud there-
better yet, 6 foot wide hoops ;D ;D
-
The slippery slope from 15" cups to.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oQAjtXz-Vc
-
So yesterday I give a lesson to a dedicated local junior (his birthday present) He's had a rough family life and golf has become his escape.
after working on all facets of his game he mentioned he needed some putting work.
i had a series of appointments afterwards so i suggested he arrive today in the morning and I would look at his putting.
He arrived at 8:30 and I left him alone,then gave him a quick look, followed by a 9 hole match which I barely won by making a 12 foot slider on the last hole.
I suggested a couple of drills and left him to practice.
After a couple of hours he came in and asked what he should do-I said "whatever you want"
He played 15 holes walking and carrying and I saw him and realized he hadn't eaten and got him a sandwich, after which he proceeded to hit balls.
My son then arrived around 4:30 pm and he joined him for 9 more.
After that he played 3 more while my son and another friend waited for my wife to pick them up.
Around 8 o'clock I saw his sister who was picking him up. She mentioned she had seen the article in the NY Times and asked me about it. She said "I though it was a joke" "I mean how stupid is that?"
She doesn't play golf--so clearly the larger holes don't make her more likely to play, but she seriously wanted to know why they would "change the rules of golf"
many ways to grow the game-but again more important to spend precious and limited resources on things that matter.
Just hate to see the PGA chasing and promoting stupid ideas instead of adding golfers one at a time.
-
Beautiful, Jeff.
Those who mock the rules/tradition forget that there are young people around who believe -- and who want to believe -- in some great and good place where everything is by the book, and where you're treated straight up, and where you are judged not by your past or the things you didn't have but by what you can do, and by what you love and by how hard you work.
I'm glad the young fellow has you in his life. You're giving something far more important than lessons; you're telling him that he matters.
Peter
-
Those who mock the rules/tradition forget that there are young people around who believe -- and who want to believe -- in some great and good place where everything is by the book, and where you're treated straight up, and where you are judged not by your past or the things you didn't have but by what you can do, and by what you love and by how hard you work.
+1 Peter.
It's too great a game to dilute to simply add participants.
Lots of things growing fast- drug use,crime, twitter.
Golf is meant to be shared-not grown.
-
Mike,
Time after time after time I've heard GCA's and others indicate that modern equipment, hi-tech, and the distances it's produced, have reduced, if not confined, the defenses to the green end, and now some want to dumb down the green end ? ? ?
How moronic is that ?
Why is there a desire on the part of some to dumb down this great game, speculating that doing so will attract more golfers ?
Why would you ruin a great game, a game that's evolved over centuries, a game that we enjoy, exactly as it is, in an attempt to please people who don't even play the game
I already play fast. I don't need 15 inch cups to speed up my pace.
I already enjoy the present challenge. I don't need 15 inch cups to gain more enjoyment.
Do the people championing the increase in the size of the hole have a financial interest in doing so ?
Or are they championing this moronic cause because they're well intentioned and charitable ?
The goofy golf course are already being played, it's called miniature golf..... and............ you can play it at night.
Wait, I have the solution.
At dusk, take out the 4.25 inch cups and put in the 15 inch cups.
Then, and dawn, take out the 15 inch cups and put in the 4.25 inch cups.
Then the champions of this moronic idea can play to their hearts content, and even engage in "night putting" with the Dean's daughter.
It's a win-win.
-
You want to grow the game? Put more golf in golf. Alister MacKenzie wanted the ball to go less far. He wanted to play more golf and walk less. But then that radical idea might put some golf companies out of business. Companies that sell carts so you can drive to that monstrous drive. Companies that sell monstrous drivers to hit those monstrous drives. Companies that sell over-engineered balls that make all that extra walking necessary. Probably even put some GCAs out of business that have been working at lengthening courses.
-
Garland,
You bring up an interesting and a good point, which is unusual for you ;D
Why is it that the people who tend to present ideas to change the game, at the core, have financial incentives to do so ?
Certainly one couldn't consider their interest in the game to be eleemosynary in nature.
-
Brauer,
I'd love to see you go into the inner cities of America's finest and replace the 10ft Basketball hops with 8 ft rims, tell them that you are trying to grow the game. If you do this, please videotape it for us.
Inner city on what planet? Whenever I see school playgrounds, I see 6 and 8 ft hoops, I see baseball diamonds at 60' rather than 90' basepaths, and I see reduces size soccer fields. In every sport, the field is reduced to the abilities of those starting the game. In addition to Tee it Forward, bigger cups on beginner courses might be an additional way to ease entry into the game. Many would say golf doesn't do enough for its beginning golfers and we have the special challenge of many newcomers being adults, not kids.
Also, I'd love for you to cut all the mickey mouse holes on all the greens, instead of the poor asst keeper who has to cut those with his/her eyes rolling and cursing under their breath.
Never said "all" the greens, just 5-10% as a test.
As Donald Ross said, beware of the guy with the tape measure. ''It's in the way that you use it, boy don't you know''- Clapton.
-
Brauer,
I'd love to see you go into the inner cities of America's finest and replace the 10ft Basketball hops with 8 ft rims, tell them that you are trying to grow the game. If you do this, please videotape it for us.
Inner city on what planet? Whenever I see school playgrounds, I see 6 and 8 ft hoops, I see baseball diamonds at 60' rather than 90' basepaths, and I see reduces size soccer fields. In every sport, the field is reduced to the abilities of those starting the game. In addition to Tee it Forward, bigger cups on beginner courses might be an additional way to ease entry into the game. Many would say golf doesn't do enough for its beginning golfers and we have the special challenge of many newcomers being adults, not kids.
Also, I'd love for you to cut all the mickey mouse holes on all the greens, instead of the poor asst keeper who has to cut those with his/her eyes rolling and cursing under their breath.
Never said "all" the greens, just 5-10% as a test.
As Donald Ross said, beware of the guy with the tape measure. ''It's in the way that you use it, boy don't you know''- Clapton.
Jeff,
I don't know your experience, but when I took my young son to play miniature golf, he loved it. And guess what, the holes were standard sized.
As Alister said, the people promoting this idea are vandals.
-
This is the same reason I HATE the fact that highly skilled female athletes still use a tiny basketball. It's a crock, and is disrespectful to the game and to women.
-
GJ,
Well, neither my opinion or yours or any related friends are really worthwhile, as they are not standard sample size. Especially in cases where your son really didn't know there was an option!
I am merely suggesting that it might be okay for a small number of courses to try this - or other ideas - out, in combo with marketing towards newbies, or many courses try it for special events to see if it really does catch on to bring new folks in the game. Granted, this was based on me going to such a course, truthfully, with about as negative attitude as those expressed here, and then having more fun than I could imagine, so it, too is one (or maybe 4) opinions.
Your overall miniature golf experience is about right though. Like I say, I think its a strength of golf that hitting a ball with a stick/club, and or trying to put a ball in a hole (similar to many other sports) is just inherently fun. If it can morph a bit to appeal to others, that's okay, too. Not some sign of weakness, just sort of a natural evolution. Of course, it could be tried, and flop, also a part of evolution!
Nor do I see anyone making a profit as necessarily an evil thing. You would think Pat went all commie on us!
As for your (and others) idea that limiting ball length to promote more interest in golf, the satisfaction of golf is hitting good golf shots and one of the biggest satisfactions is hitting it long and straight. Taking that away primarily to either 1) reduce profits of ball mfgs. or 2) punish tour pros for skill is just crazy. I think you are wrong. Hitting the ball too far is a "problem" statistically for 1% or less of players.
Again, if we want to argue special tournament balls, fine. It is also logical (to me) to merely move tournaments to a handful of modern courses of mega length, but that's not what we worry about. It's about new golfers, golfer retention, etc. and those are really separate arguments.
And yes, someone who has invested $5-10M in a golf facility wants it to stay open, and doesn't want to go broke (too many do anyway) If you don't have a dog in the hunt, you can say "let the "marginal golfers" go away, etc. They can't.
If we want to also argue that 5% of golf courses need to be pitch and putt or have large cups, I would also argue that only 5% of courses really need back tees over 7,000 yards, then okay.
As I have said before, the basic argument here is whether golf needs to strictly stay to the one rules for all, or more specifically, golf courses that are one size fits all? I think we do less for beginners (or even casual players who might enjoy an easier challenge) than we should. Is it really THAT bad to think that making the game more fun (possibly) for the recreational golfer? That it will ruin golf? I just don't see it.
Not sure where golf will evolve, but I do know its in for changes, because nothing is immune. Maybe its just more high tech, and the courses stay the same. 15" cups may never catch on, except as a niche thing. Seems worth discussing and trying. It seems to me that golf is merely demanding everyone loves it in one specific way, not the way they want to love it and certainly not just the essence of the game, but the rules of the game to a T. We all know how relationships that force someone to do things turn out.......everyone needs a little flexibility.
-
Dan,
Just out of curiosity, do you know why the WNBA uses smaller balls, who decided to do it, and if the women playing simply accept it like sheep even though they don't like it? Have their been any protests by players themselves? Or do the like a ball that fits their hand size better?
Not sure, but I can see them as thinking you are just another old white guy telling them how to live up to your standards, which they would also find disrespectful. (again, I don't know, just wondering based on my experiences......and I hate to sound harsh to you, but it is of course no surprise to know that many women think we are just chauvinist pigs, and don't even know it!) And, I sort of see that as a problem with our 8M core golfers and the powers that be, and I hear it in responses here.
-
Jeff,
It's not just men. And, it's not just golfers.
"Around 8 o'clock I saw his sister who was picking him up. She mentioned she had seen the article in the NY Times and asked me about it. She said "I though it was a joke" "I mean how stupid is that?"
She doesn't play golf"
And, my son didn't know there was an option to standard sized holes in miniature golf? ?? ??? ????
Miniature golf with 15 inch holes would be par 18 with few bogeys. ::)
-
So now any flipplant, immediate reaction is considered valid research? I would use the market, and as mentioned, if it fails it fails. Like most here, I can't see it taking over any more than a handful of golf courses, at least on a full time basis.
As to PP3, all I was saying is we don't know if your son would have also enjoyed 15" holes. Of course he knew that the standard cups were there! Geez, you guys are getting so worked up you can't even read straight!
I would agree that the challenge of miniature golf would change a lot given how short the holes are. I still believe beginning golfers could use courses like the MD Challenge Course where the forward tees are chip shots, the middle and back tees are something you work back to. Eventually the goal for most would be to get off these learner facilities and on to bigger courses, however no problem is some occasional golfers simply want to stay there for occasional rounds.
As I say, what is the root of such vehement resistance to change? It is merely discussion of ways to attract new golfers. And yes, while Taylor Made will sell more clubs, if they can spread their overhead among a few million more sales each year, maybe out prices will go down, too.....
-
Would anyone posting herein bother to even carry a putter on any kind of 'course' with 15" holes?
atb
-
Thomas, you do need a putter.
-
So now any flipplant, immediate reaction is considered valid research?
You mean like your one round on a course with 15 inch holes?
-
15 " CUPS will make the game much quicker. A round could drop nearly an hour. A lot of time is spent on greens and the wilder the greens the slower play will be.
It is not GOLF though so no point in taking in any further, some games you just cant change the rules and associated history.
+1
The above surely should have been the end of this nonsense.
How about we remove the holes altogether, replace them with two goal nets, change the playing surface to a far more manageable and orderly rectangle, form teams of, say, eleven on each side, and the game will really take off.
-
This has probably been mentioned, as I just read the last few pages.
When I read about these experiments, my first reaction was that this would be a great alternative to the usual scramble event. Many of these are social events that take five hours or longer and often involve occasional golfers playing their annual game. These events make money for the course and the F&B. But they also deprive the regular players from playing while they are going on and on and on. In our experience the worst are the corporate “customer appreciation” events where folks get off work and still get paid to golf and drink. They don’t care that it takes all day. Anything to speed these events up appeals to me. I don’t think our regular golfers would mind “big hole” golf on those days (before or after). A lot of our weekday golfers are seniors and retirees who would love making some putts and chip ins.
-
Though he vows to stay involved in HACK Golf I am sure Mark King's departure from Taylor Made will have an effect on this experiment.
-
So let's say I were to propose attracting new golfers by allowing them to drive their personal cars and SUVs directly onto the course and even onto the greens in lieu of renting a golf cart. After all, the American consumer loves them some drive-thru ANYTHING.
If someone rightly points out that it's a pointless and idiotic idea, are they just "resisting change"? Or are they speaking the simple fact that such an idea is obviously stupid?
-
David,
Yes, I think trying something and judging that it might have a place on 1-3% of golf courses (I know I said 5-10% earlier, but probably on the high side of expectations) is better than asking random people who don't play golf, or posting crazily exaggerated scenarios, is 10X more reasonable track in forming an opinion. And, as near as I can tell, no one on this thread other than me has actually tried playing such a course. Nor have they seen such a course that gets reasonable play.
Brent, yours is obviously one of the over wrought scenarios. That said, if one challenge course full of golfers isn't some evidence of its appeal, I don't know what is. But, I do agree that its not anything guaranteed for success, or something you just change all of golf for, which is what some surmise. And, someone needs to invest their money. I guess as far as "official" golfdom goes, it would probably be more attractive if they knew they weren't going to get slapped down silly here, there and everywhere.
And, the Challenge Course at MD (not a pitch and putt, but there you go again, trying to distort the concept) seems like a great place to do such a thing - surrounding residential for built in clientele, takes less land, might attract those middle class gen X who would try it, and on and on and on. Trust me, its not like Obamacare - in this case, if you like your golf course, you really can keep your golf course! No one will be forcing it on you. (Sorry, couldn't resist the comparison....)
I have never really been a par 3 course kind of guy, but this one showed me it has potential if done right. And the alternate to play to big holes was fun. That's really all I can say as fact - I played it, I liked it, and see some potential and hope someone does try it in the right situations. And, I will recommend it if I find a situation I feel is right for the project.
-
Serious question.
Wouldn't a green get pretty scarred up with 15 inch cups being moved around it?
-
Jeff,
Yeah, I guess if they weren't careful, and left them high, it really would be sort of like that bumper pool someone suggested. However, I didn't see any of that at MD and don't know why if changed with care, whatever size cup would make a difference.
-
I guess a 15" cup would have have to be pretty deep in order that balls going into it don't bounce out again.
atb
-
Inner city on what planet? Whenever I see school playgrounds, I see 6 and 8 ft hoops, I see baseball diamonds at 60' rather than 90' basepaths, and I see reduces size soccer fields. In every sport, the field is reduced to the abilities of those starting the game. In addition to Tee it Forward, bigger cups on beginner courses might be an additional way to ease entry into the game. Many would say golf doesn't do enough for its beginning golfers and we have the special challenge of many newcomers being adults, not kids.
Those reduced sizes are all to induce the young child to play, not to make it easier for adults. That's not even a remotely comparable analogy.
Thomas Dai -
The article that ran in our local rag over the weekend said the cups were filled with sand to "collect" the balls coming in with speed. Justin Rose was quoted extensively, and noted that the cups removed speed as a factor in reading the greens. So, they're really just making it easier for the better golfers, while the beginners will still struggle.
jeffw -
Love your comment about adding golfers one at a time. It has (sadly) taken me 20 years to really understand that concept with my own business. The only thing I can say in my own defense is I don't think most people EVER learn that lesson, so maybe 20 years isn't so bad. :)
-
... And, as near as I can tell, no one on this thread other than me has actually tried playing such a course. Nor have they seen such a course that gets reasonable play. ...
Sorry, but I play that way several times a year. And, when I show up at the course it and find out it is set up that way it is a huge letdown. It is a huge letdown especially for the low handicapper in the group, because we can beat him when playing to the "buckets" as he calls them.
-
I guess a 15" cup would have have to be pretty deep in order that balls going into it don't bounce out again.
atb
This is one of the issues they are struggling with at the moment.
-
So today as I soothed my jagged/spent nerves after stumbling home in a qualifier (I certainly could've used larger holes ::) ::)),
I asked the bartender if she would play more golf if the cups were larger. (speaking of larger cups ;) ;D)
She said she would play more if her friends played more, but she could care less about how big the hole was.....as long as the cart had beer in it.
Day 2 of my unscientific research, but hey somebody's gotta do it...... ;)
-
Does anyone think anyone has taken up golf because of putting?
-
Does anyone think anyone has taken up golf because of putting?
Greg,
That's a great point
-
How did the size of 15 inches come about? What I find frustrating is puts that I miss 1 inch short/left/right or hit a bit too hard and pop off the back edge. So give me an inch on all sides and a little extra to spare and go for 7 inch cups. I've hit many good even great putts that burn the edges. But if I miss a putt 5 inches offline my stroke, speed or read was off enough that I don't deserve to hole the putt. Imagine an Driver that is allowed to be struck over 15 degrees open/closed and always find the fairway because they are 200 yards wide. I'm open to the idea but it needs to be slimmed down a bit.
-
Can't people just play with gimmes (inside the leather) and then not add the stroke? I know it's not real golf, but neither are 15" holes. Like Emile says, the 15" thing seems arbitrary (unless it's a ploy for footgolf or something). Or even better, just do what Hogan, Knudsen, and Moe Norman used to do: hit the green, pick up, add two, go tee off on the next hole. So many better choices than cutting bigger holes.
To the original topic of the thread, regarding how it would change strategy, I definitely think you would see changes to "protect par": Extremely wild contours (think slope of 10%+), holes cut on the edge of the green with water off a cliff behind, etc. In other words, all kinds of ridiculous things that would make maintenance even harder and the game no more fun.
-
Emile and others who wonder about 15" - it's outrageous for sure - and of dubious merit if its purpose is to draw people to the game - but it is a perfect illustration of a De Bono "po" in action (see Wikipedia entry for po) - a seemingly silly idea that is allowed to survive long enough for a good idea to be "undiscovered".
People are attracted to golf because it takes place in the great outdoors, and offers the thrill and sensation of hitting a ball in the air with a stick toward a target. Its allure is not based on bunting or rolling a ball along the ground but on launching it into the air, over and around all sorts of obstacles (and elements like wind) and imposing some measure of control over what it will do in the air as well as when it hits the ground. The soul of the game is shot making and one goal of architecture is to add interest to the shots.
I think when Mike first posed the question about the hole and its influence on strategy, his assumption was that a 15" hole would most likely reduce strategy and thus playing interest. Maybe a better question would be this: is there anything that could be done to the hole or the areas around the hole, that has not become an accepted tradition, that would make golf, especially the shots before the putt, even more interesting than it is now? Without being goofy?
-
What's fun (to me) and non-goofy is when a regular old-fashioned hole of 4-1/4" is put at or near the bottom of a "bowl" in the green. It makes for a very easy hole location (lower scoring) which is probably seen by conventional golfers as the downside (makes putting "too easy" if you had a bunch of holes cut in bowls). But it's kind of neat to putt or chip a ball over the precipice and try to judge the line so as to have the best chance of the ball going in. And when it doesn't go in, the green is basically uphill in all directions from the cup so you're hardly ever going to end up more than a foot or so away.
If drainage would allow, I think a set of greens in which each one had two or three large "bowl" like areas would be an easy and fun way to build a course. It's probably anti-strategic but that doesn't really factor into "fun" for 99.9% of golfers. And of course if you designed greens around multiple bowl-like areas, you could alternatively move the hole locations uphill to a greater or lesser extent to provide some decidedly non-easy locations for setup variety.
-
I definitely think you would see changes to "protect par": Extremely wild contours (think slope of 10%+), holes cut on the edge of the green with water off a cliff behind, etc. In other words, all kinds of ridiculous things that would make maintenance even harder and the game no more fun.
And then people would say that 15" cups are no longer fun and are keeping people away from the game. Then'll someone will come up with the idea of having cups as big as a garbage can lid.
-
"8 minute abs?"
"7 minute abs would be better"
"How about 6 minute abs"
"that's stupid-who would believe 6 minute abs"
-
"8 minute abs?"
"7 minute abs would be better"
"How about 6 minute abs"
"that's stupid-who would believe 6 minute abs"
Ever get the feeling the marketing genius behind 15" cups watched Spinal Tap the night before his presentation--but didn't realize the movie was satire?
-
"8 minute abs?"
"7 minute abs would be better"
"How about 6 minute abs"
"that's stupid-who would believe 6 minute abs"
Ever get the feeling the marketing genius behind 15" cups watched Spinal Tap the night before his presentation--but didn't realize the movie was satire?
These cups go to 11....
-
"8 minute abs?"
"7 minute abs would be better"
"How about 6 minute abs"
"that's stupid-who would believe 6 minute abs"
Ever get the feeling the marketing genius behind 15" cups watched Spinal Tap the night before his presentation--but didn't realize the movie was satire?
Yeah, he stumbled up groping and confused in a drunken stoney haze from the basement bowels of some souless convention centre only to be met by three six-month-product--cycle-producing clones in suits who whispered into his ear "15 inch cups" just before shoving him through the curtain to face a bank of lights and a crowd of reporters, to whom he shouted "We love you, 15 inch cups!"...with the speakers turned to 11.
-
Im thinking it was the choreography that was the problem.
-
You know what they say-
Big Cup.......
Big Balls......
-
So I go to Hack golf.
first comment i see is a player who says he'd like to improve on his "average" drive of 285 yards----to 350 yards.
He proposes superballs.
Now there's credibility. ::) ::)
What happens when 350's not enough (or whatever fantasy yardage he thinks he hits it)
It seems to me that time and time again there is always the excuse that golf takes too long, and that Hack golf and 15 inch cups would speed it up and grow the game.
If we grow the game and participation soars, how exactly will that speed up the game? ;)
There was an unnatural growth in the game 10-15 years ago. It naturally contracted.
Golf will be just fine, and a slow quality growth is much preferred to an unsustainable surge of participation by a group looking for easy and quick unearned success.
-
I find myself wondering, what's worse: the kind of nut jobs they have over at Hack golf, or the kind of nut jobs we have here?
I want to log on over there as Fredrick J Mipsypants and reply: "Good god, man, have you never heard of the spirit of the game?! Do you understand the craftsmanship that went into a persimmon driver? Would you have Garden City and Myopia become wholly obsolete? Superballs indeed! What's next - 15 inch cups? Excuse me - I'll retire to Bedlam!"
-
Colbert mocked Hack Golf a couple weeks back, starting at about 2:25 in the following clip: http://www.hulu.com/watch/614336
His suggestion to make golf more fun? Divide golfers into two teams, play for each others greens, lose the clubs, raise the holes to ten feet in the air, and make the balls big and orange.
Colbert also shows a clip where the Taylor Made guy blames the decline in golf on lack of innovation. It occurred to me that the timing of the decline in golf directly corresponds to perhaps the greatest period of golf "innovation" in history of the game.
(This is the same Colbert segment where he proposed his now infamous and controversial "Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.")
-
Thanks for that link, David - that was very funny.
Unbelievable, huh? Trouble with golf says the guy who churns out new 'innovations' every 3 months is that golf doesn't innovate. Ugh.
Peter
-
Shorten the distance the ball goes. More golf, less walking! Bring back the floater!
Shamelessly stolen from Dr. Mac
-
Shorten the distance the ball goes. More golf, less walking! Bring back the floater!
Shamelessly stolen from Dr. Mac
Absolutely irrefutable Garland. Golf has real issues. Heads in sand won't make them go way. Time and cost deter. Both would be addressed if the ball didn't go so far. Reduce the distance travelled over the course of a round and you reduce capital costs, operating costs and time to play. Where the equipment manufacturers could really make a difference, is if they used their marketing muscle to change attitudes so that, instead of playing from multiple tees, we played multiple ball styles. The best would eschew playing the "longest ball" like they now eschew moving to the forward tees from the tips. The game itself need change very little, since the Bubba's of the world will still hit it way past everybody else, but instead of walking 7500 yards a round after their blasts, 6500 yards will cover the distance and because distance is relative, the game will not feel diminished in any way as it might if we were playing with something like Cayman balls or a truncated game like pitch and putt.
-
Colbert mocked Hack Golf a couple weeks back, starting at about 2:25 in the following clip: http://www.hulu.com/watch/614336
His suggestion to make golf more fun? Divide golfers into two teams, play for each others greens, lose the clubs, raise the holes to ten feet in the air, and make the balls big and orange.
Colbert also shows a clip where the Taylor Made guy blames the decline in golf on lack of innovation. It occurred to me that the timing of the decline in golf directly corresponds to perhaps the greatest period of golf "innovation" in history of the game.
(This is the same Colbert segment where he proposed his now infamous and controversial "Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.")
Re. the connection between " innovation" and the decline...
Two other popular participation sports have done the same thing. Tennis and bowling went from being simple sports focused on technique and finesse (mostly) and they both were transformed into power games in which technologically advanced equipment became ever more important.
And the bottom fell out of participation.
Now it's golf's turn.
K
-
Shorten the distance the ball goes. More golf, less walking! Bring back the floater!
Shamelessly stolen from Dr. Mac
Absolutely irrefutable Garland. Golf has real issues. Heads in sand won't make them go way. Time and cost deter. Both would be addressed if the ball didn't go so far. Reduce the distance travelled over the course of a round and you reduce capital costs, operating costs and time to play. Where the equipment manufacturers could really make a difference, is if they used their marketing muscle to change attitudes so that, instead of playing from multiple tees, we played multiple ball styles. The best would eschew playing the "longest ball" like they now eschew moving to the forward tees from the tips. The game itself need change very little, since the Bubba's of the world will still hit it way past everybody else, but instead of walking 7500 yards a round after their blasts, 6500 yards will cover the distance and because distance is relative, the game will not feel diminished in any way as it might if we were playing with something like Cayman balls or a truncated game like pitch and putt.
+1
was talking with another pro yesterday(who owns a pro shop and is a long hitter) about the article in the NY Times and how pathetic the President of the PGA came across in the article.
He said, it's really simple
1.Roll back the ball to shrink the field of play everybody walks
2. Grow the game the way it used to be with kids caddying and junior programs
3.Still trying tp get my arms around banning athe anchored putter but enlarging the hole.
and Ken is right, though I'm not sure golf was ever intended to be anymore popular than bowling and tennis (in the 70's)
Lots of knuckleheads out there-I'm OK if they keep playing SuperMario, skateboards, Motocross or whatever "cool" things they're into.
Some will eventually gravitate to golf and its appeal, but many won't-that's OK
-
How did the size of 15 inches come about? What I find frustrating is puts that I miss 1 inch short/left/right or hit a bit too hard and pop off the back edge. So give me an inch on all sides and a little extra to spare and go for 7 inch cups. I've hit many good even great putts that burn the edges. But if I miss a putt 5 inches offline my stroke, speed or read was off enough that I don't deserve to hole the putt. Imagine an Driver that is allowed to be struck over 15 degrees open/closed and always find the fairway because they are 200 yards wide. I'm open to the idea but it needs to be slimmed down a bit.
Let me preface by saying I hate the idea of 15" cups, and think it will do zero to increase participation.
That said, I think you're looking at this based on biases of scale from the current cup size. You wish that a 1" short or grazing the edge putt would drop, because you feel like you "hit a good putt" and maybe it deserves to go in, but something 6" short or over a full cup right/left don't. Well, maybe that makes sense from inside 10', but what about a 50' putt? Don't you feel like you hit a pretty good putt if it misses a cup to the side or comes up 6" short? A putt of that length "deserves" to go in if its that close, does it not?
Consider if golf today had a 2" cup (we'll ignore the issue of there being no place to put the flag) The idea of going to a 4.25" cup would be the same magnitude of change as going to a 9" cup today, and would seem as ludicrous. Today's knee knocking four footer would be a knee knocking one footer, and getting up and down from around the greens would be much much harder than it is today. It would still be golf, putting would take on greater importance however since it would account for a higher percentage of your total score.
-
I agree 100% with those saying that if you want to grow the game amongst kids, you have to address the cost and length of rounds. The cost has gone up faster than the rate of inflation, and the time it takes to play has lengthened. Kids don't want to play a game that has a lot of standing around and waiting, but that's what golf has become in a lot of places.
If people who golf are having trouble getting their kids interested in the game, what are the chances for a kid who doesn't have anyone in the family playing? Imagine a kid who has a friend who plays (because his family does) and he tells his parents he's interested in golf. They look at how much it costs per round (they're hardly going to consider season passes unless they're sure he'll stay interested) along with even used equipment, balls, potentially lessons. They'll probably encourage him to play basketball, baseball or soccer instead, or offer to buy him a PS4 or iPad if he'll give up the idea of golf, because it'll save them money.
If he does start playing, how long before it gets old getting stuck behind a foursome of guys who think they're too important to let mere kids play through and having to stand around and wait 10 minutes per hole? Kids want to play, not wait, and they're quickly going to conclude golf is a game for old boring people or jerks based on the way I see kids treated on the course today and remember occasionally being treated myself when I was a kid.
-
Doug,
I think that there's almost universal agreement that the time to play 18 holes is a major impediment.
YET, NO ONE, except a few are willing to do anything about it.
Clubs will NOT take the hard line position on the time to play.
Last week a fellow from Arizona sent me a request to forward him the scorecard from GCGC because he's trying to get the rounds down from 5 hours to 4:30 to 4:00 to 3:30.
He knew that the back of the scorecard at GCGC states the following:
3 1/2 hours is SUFFICIENT TIME FOR A 4-BALL MATCH TO FINISH 18 HOLES.
I think earlier scorecards may have indicated 3 hours.
But, the problem remains, few, if any clubs are willing to implement and enforce fast play guidelines.
The "WILL" just isn't there and I don't understand why.
Now, I love a round of golf, with 4 or 5 other guys, a foursome, threesome, twosome or by myself.
The comraderie is the icing on the cake.
As much as I love being on the course, I don't like slow rounds where I have to wait to hit a shot, any shot.
Between guys who watch too much TV golf and emulate every slow playing golfer they see, to the mechanical golfers who go through a routine that doesn't produce enhanced results, the pace of play over the last 6 decades has deteriorated.
And, what's interesting is that the golfer, vis a vis equipment, is hitting the ball farther.
So, it's the culture.
If I see another guy take 10 minutes to line up the line he's put on his ball, when it's his turn to putt, I'm going to go bonkers.
It's the culture.
We need to make fun of people who line up the line on their ball.
We need to abuse people who are slow players.
We need to ostracize people who are slow players
We need to move slow players to the last tee off times of the day
End of rant ;D
-
What many high handicap slow players don't realize is that they play worse by playing slow. I have had a regular that I play with, whom I have mentioned to that he plays slow. He takes his stance grounds his club and then stands there forever staring at the ball. IMO he is tensing practically every muscle in his body before he swings, and it is no wonder that he makes bad swings. He particularly does this on the last few holes of a close match, which he invariably loses. Methinks he thinks deep concentration will allow him to guide the muscles of his body to a better shot. IMO nothing could be farther from the truth.
Anyway, he has stopped playing with us, and plays by himself trying to get his game better. He says if he can't get better, he's quitting.
-
The "WILL" just isn't there and I don't understand why.
Because the game is in a period of decline and everybody is afraid to scare away customers because they know that there is nobody behind them to take their place.
-
The "WILL" just isn't there and I don't understand why.
Because the game is in a period of decline and everybody is afraid to scare away customers because they know that there is nobody behind them to take their place.
I specifically choose a course in the area, especially on weekends, because I know that I can often get around it in three hours as a twosome, and only a handful of times more than four hours, versus a couple other courses that are overall probably of equal quality where four hours is a damn fast round, and over five hours is not unusual.
I'm sure there are others who feel the same way. Any course who is "afraid to scare away customers" is run by morons who think that such actions can only chase golfers away, and not attract other golfers.
The interesting thing about the "fast" course is that they don't do anything special for pace of play. I think the main reason is because there aren't a lot of trees "in play", and the rough is only about 3" deep most of the time, and the tall native grass requires a particularly long and wild shot to get into. There isn't a lot of time wasted looking for balls, and I think that somehow pushes players to not dawdle in general because they're used to moving along at this course. If you play a course where you're waiting for five minutes for the group ahead to look for balls on the first couple holes, you get into a slow mindset and you aren't going to worry too much about keeping the group behind you waiting for whatever reason, and pretty soon you have 4.5 to 5 hour rounds.
Despite the fact this course has six par threes, and six par fives (three quite reachable for longer hitters, two out of range of anyone not named Bubba) and two par 4s that are driveable by long hitters, play moves along quite well most of the time. The course is interesting, challenging, and well designed, but not unnecessarily penal and designed to cause tour pros to work to shoot in the 60s like too many modern courses - there are only three tour pros (two former, one current) I'm aware of who have ever played this course, which is probably the case with most such modern courses, so designing it to challenge them is wasteful as well as a fool's errand!
-
The "WILL" just isn't there and I don't understand why.
Because the game is in a period of decline and everybody is afraid to scare away customers because they know that there is nobody behind them to take their place.
David,
There's certainly some truth in that, but, long before the game entered the period of decline, clubs were unwilling to encourage and enforce fast play.
There's an understandable desire to avoid confrontations with fellow members, that's why the time out - time in - differential system we developed worked so well.
-
We need to make fun of people who line up the line on their ball.
We need to abuse people who are slow players.
We need to ostracize people who are slow players
We need to move slow players to the last tee off times of the day
+1
-
The "WILL" just isn't there and I don't understand why.
Because the game is in a period of decline and everybody is afraid to scare away customers because they know that there is nobody behind them to take their place.
I specifically choose a course in the area, especially on weekends, because I know that I can often get around it in three hours as a twosome, and only a handful of times more than four hours
The interesting thing about the "fast" course is that they don't do anything special for pace of play. I think the main reason is because there aren't a lot of trees "in play", and the rough is only about 3" deep most of the time, and the tall native grass requires a particularly long and wild shot to get into. There isn't a lot of time wasted looking for balls, and I think that somehow pushes players to not dawdle in general because they're used to moving along at this course. If you play a course where you're waiting for five minutes for the group ahead to look for balls on the first couple holes, you get into a slow mindset and you aren't going to worry too much about keeping the group behind you waiting for whatever reason, and pretty soon you have 4.5 to 5 hour rounds.
+1
Imagine that- a course that can survive without eye candy.
-
The "WILL" just isn't there and I don't understand why.
Because the game is in a period of decline and everybody is afraid to scare away customers because they know that there is nobody behind them to take their place.
I specifically choose a course in the area, especially on weekends, because I know that I can often get around it in three hours as a twosome, and only a handful of times more than four hours
The interesting thing about the "fast" course is that they don't do anything special for pace of play. I think the main reason is because there aren't a lot of trees "in play", and the rough is only about 3" deep most of the time, and the tall native grass requires a particularly long and wild shot to get into. There isn't a lot of time wasted looking for balls, and I think that somehow pushes players to not dawdle in general because they're used to moving along at this course. If you play a course where you're waiting for five minutes for the group ahead to look for balls on the first couple holes, you get into a slow mindset and you aren't going to worry too much about keeping the group behind you waiting for whatever reason, and pretty soon you have 4.5 to 5 hour rounds.
+1
Imagine that- a course that can survive without eye candy.
There is truly a ton of common sense on this page, I had to double check and see if I was on the right site. ;D
I don't see myself buying any Taylor Made products in the future...
-
And once again Mucci IS talking sense. :o ;)
Two examples:
Having popped down to the club (Hayling) yesterday morning, I bumped into three ladies as they headed to the first tee. I returned three hours later to find them putting their clubs back in their respective cars. A brief conversation ensued in which they confirmed that they had played all eighteen holes. Clearly they'd had a very pleasant time in the Spring sunshine, they just hadn't felt the need to mess about.
In contrast, last year, as some of you know, I spent the summer having what amounted to a mini sabbatical and worked in a Pro Shop. It was something I'd always wanted to try and, by and large, it was a wonderful experience. However, I worked for one of the large chains where money sings louder than anything else and no one dares to "have a word" with slow players as ultimately they are customers. The net result has been for round times to get longer and longer. In part that's down to overcrowding but in part it's down to blatantly unnecessary slow play. Stereotyping massively, the men tend to take themselves far too seriously while the women tend to forget to play golf whenever gossip breaks out. The old folks on a Monday morning rarely get round in less than five hours. Other members moan to the Pro Shop but no one actually acts. In my time there I did try to address the issue but even the simple notice I put up advising players that three and a half hours was long enough (a notice which can be seen in many clubs up and down the land) was met with something approaching a riot. Safe to say that the notice, along with every other attempt I made to address the problem, didn't receive any backing. I came into work one day and, after just a couple of short weeks, my precious notice had disappeared.
Bottom line, slow play (and poor etiquette in not calling quicker groups through) exists wherever no strong culture is in place making it absolutely clear what is and isn't acceptable. Those ladies at Hayling wouldn't dream of stopping for a chat on the green because it's simply not a part of their golf DNA. We all need direction in life but, regrettable though it is, some people need something more akin to herding.