[Phil Benedict]

There's another thread going on here on the comparative historical import of the Haskell and the modern ball (eg the ProV1).  A few years back Jack Nicklaus was talking about building scaled back courses (in Japan I think because of scarce real estate) which would use a limited flight ball.  I don't know how many have been built.

This led me to thinking about what is the optimal scale for a golf course, not so much from a land use perspective but for the enjoyment of the game.  For example, would golf be as much fun if the equipment limited distances to say, 75% of current distance?  The equivalent to a 6500 yard course would be about 4900 yards under these conditions.  Would this make a difference to the enjoyment of the game?

[Tom Huckaby]

It was Cayman Islands - hence the name "Cayman ball" for Nicklaus' idea and the ball used for it.  I do believe a few courses were built, but not many.  The idea never seemed to catch on, as much logical sense as it does make.

Why?

I'm guessing that golfers used to certain distances just couldn't give their hearts to reduced distance.  Chicks do dig the long ball, and well... smashing the ball as far as one can and seeing it soar does remain one of the game's greatest thrills.

I would say that over time, one could get used to the "Cayman" game... but it would take a long time to unlearn previous thrills and habits.

TH

[Phil Benedict]

Tom,

I think you are probably right that we are conditioned to expect certain distances, and it's pretty hard to change that conditioning.  But I don't think the scale of the game is an inherent attribute; it's just something we are used to.  The game may have been as much fun and the architecture just as interesting with the gutty as with the ProV1, even though it was scaled down.

[Mike Hendren]

Nicklaus popularized it, but William Diddell originally came up with the idea:

http://www.amickgca.com/cayman.htm

The ball is primarily sold today for short field / indoor practice use.



Nobody pulls up to the drive-in window at McDonald's and asks the order taker to "minimize it."  

Mike

[George Pazin]

The cayman ball was HUGELY restricted, relative to the normal ball. I think something with a more moderate restriction (like 10%, maybe 15%) would be accepted, albeit perhaps begrudgingly.

[Tom Huckaby]

More wisdom from the Hillbilly.

 

And George, the whole point of doing this at all would be to allow for less land to be used... so to make it worthwhile, you'd kind of have to make the restriction pretty darn large.  10-15% doesn't help much in the overall concept here, does it?

TH

[Aaron Katz]

I do think that we might be getting to the point where increased distance will reduce enjoyment.  

A "long drive" is a relative concept to some degree, but not totally.  I wouldn't have fun playing 100 yard par 5's with a nerf golf ball no matter how often I outdrove my opponents.  By the same token, however, I think if 400 yard drives became the norm, I would not enjoy the game as much, even if courses were extended so as to ensure continued challenge.  My rationale is two-fold:  (1) I would not be able to see the flight of the ball, including the bounce and roll, nearly as well.  This would be reducing a great pleasure of hitting a good shot.  Just as we wouldn't want a course with nothing but blind shots, don't we usually want to have the pleasure of seeing our shot bound its way down the fairway?  (2)  The short game shots would be totally incongruent.  Wouldn't golf be silly if we were hitting our wedges 200 yards?  Our short pitches and chips would become a smaller proportion of a full shot, which might end up seeming a little bit silly.  

Indeed, I already have trouble seeing my driver and long/mid iron shots finish nowadays.  I'd gladly go back to my Titleist Professional and 6900 yard tracks as the norm.  

[George Pazin]

More wisdom from the Hillbilly.

 

And George, the whole point of doing this at all would be to allow for less land to be used... so to make it worthwhile, you'd kind of have to make the restriction pretty darn large.  10-15% doesn't help much in the overall concept here, does it?

TH

I was trying to minimize the land scaleback.

 

[Tim Liddy]

I, for one, think it would be great to hit it about 30% shorter. I could see the ball land (I get tired of not seeing the ball land on tee shots) and cross bunkers would be a strategic challenge again.  I would especially like it if the ball curved a bit. We would also be able to lose a few tee boxes on each golf hole. Alas, it will never happen, distance is addictive- finesse is not.  

[Steve Lang]

 
 yeh it is.. play the forward tees, work on the short game, and try to break par.. of course its nice to have someone to play with..  oh, and you'll only get to hit driver 4x per round.. make them good!

[Bill Gayne]

It would make no difference to me. I play the Golden Horseshoe Spotswood course on a regular basis and it's still about hitting shots. The Spotswood is a nine hole par 31 course. It's great going out there with my seven and ten year old. A good portion of the players appear to be parents with kids, the elderly, beginners, or a specific group of guys that like to play with wolf with more than four players. I'll loop around twice when I'm pressed for time and can't squeeze in a round on the Gold Course.

[Jim Thompson]

Sidebar question:  Does anyone know the relationship between the Haskell Ball and the development of the game known as"GROLF"?  By the way GROLF is not misspelled.

JT

[Jeff Fortson]

I took three Cayman balls with me to Scotland and played that little pitch and putt in front of Turnberry and it was a balst.  I must haved played 100 holes in one afternoon.  I also used to play with them as a kid on my parents property.  I made up holes and absolutely loved it.  So much fun shaping balls around.  I think golf is fun on nearly every scale.


Jeff F.

[Phil Benedict]

If you scale back the equipment everything would need to be proportionately smaller.  Shorter holes, smaller targets etc. I agree that a 100-yard par 5 would be absurd.  But, with the distance cut back 25%, a 450-yard hole would be a real 3-shotter for most players.

I think the original Scottish courses were somewhere in the 5000 yard range, those that date back to when Old Tom was winning the Open Championship.  

I realize this is a completely hypothetical question - you can't stop progress and distance has always been equated with progress in golf.

[Doug Siebert]

I don't think it would be a problem, it would just take a lot of getting used to.  
Its pretty obvious it would be a hard sell even to the supposedly more open minded GCA crowd based on the comments here where people variously say they couldn't get used to anything much longer or shorter than today.  There's nothing magical about today's length and distances, we're just used to seeing them.

Its all a matter of scale.  160 yards is pretty short on a golf course, a short iron for many of us, but stand at home plate and a 160 yard (480 foot) hit is an absolutely unreal distance that has only been achieved a few times in the history of baseball.  Go to a (American) football field and now 60 yards is a huge distance to be thinking about throwing, punting or kicking the ball.  Switch to a basketball court and 10 yards is a way long range three pointer.

A Cayman course isn't just half scale distances.  I believe the ball is lighter and thus much more affected by wind, and if you hit it only half as far you probably hit it only half as high (if that) so trees and hills become much more of an obstacle.  On the other hand, a light ball probably doesn't dive down into the rough as far and it'll be easier to see when a huge drive busts it out there 160 yards so it wouldn't get lost as often.

Before I started playing on real courses I played in my backyard -- I sunk a tin can in the ground at the top of a hill in the corner of my backyard and played with plastic golf balls (not the whiffle type, they were plastic but had no holes)  I'd only use irons, and could hit a 5 iron about 25 yards with it (versus maybe 100 on the range at the time)  Unfortunately when I got a little older I was able to hit a wedge from one end of the yard to the other and my course wasn't fun anymore...

[Eric Franzen]

I really like the idea of the cayman course as a complement to the game as we know it. Obviously it would make golf possible in urban areas where a normal course doesn't fit the land. I also imagine that it would be a great way to introduce kids and new golfers to the game.
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()