R&A - golf in smaller spaces

[Thomas Dai]

This recent issue about golf in smaller spaces published by the R&A may be of interest. - https://assets.randa.org/c42c7bf4-dca7-00ea-4f2e-373223f80f76/0626ec4d-2544-4a6a-b307-f0eb46a512c1/Golf%20For%20Smaller%20Spaces%20Guide.pdf
Some interesting stuff although the to some obvious matter of a golf ball that doesn’t travel as far and would thus seem to be appropriate for smaller spaces only receives a couple of mentions.
Atb

[Matt Schoolfield]

This is a very good idea, and as generally quite a similar set of ideas that I lay out in an essay I wrote last year.

Where my proposal and this set of principals seems to be a different focus on the purpose of these facilities. I see all of these types of facilities as being the steps on a latter to get people from having no experience with golf, to be full fledged beginners, without actually noticing we were teaching them golf skills. Each of these facilities could be based around a different intensity of the golf swing, starting with a putting stroke, then a chipping stroke, then a 3/4 swing, then a full swing, then a full driver.

I realize that this is Scotland, but in America, I see the scourge of the ever-present driving range, a facility we pretend is for beginners, but is more suited to advanced golfers. This is where we send beginners to do homework before they get to have fun.

The facility that I think is the linchpin to getting folks into golf, that seems to be missing from most of these analyses, is the chipping course.

In this publication, the Bruntsfield Links is packaged with pitch and putt courses, but when I compare it to the pitch and putt that I played growing up, Butler Pitch & Putt in Austin, the two courses couldn't be more different in kind. At Butler, we see a traditional pitch and putt, normal-ish sized greens and distances of 60-100 yards. At the Bruntsfield Links the vast majority of the holes are between 40-60 yards, the greens are absolutely tiny, and there is effectively no reason to hit the ball high in the air. It is more effective to play a chip-and-run shot.

This essay packages a course at these distances, too long for a putter, but too short for a full swing, as park golf. I suppose that's all well and good and I support park golf, but I think that these chipping distances are perfectly suited to actual golf. I've taken many folks who have no experience in golf to both a full-swing pitch and putt, and a chipping-swing course, and far and away these beginners are better able to handle the chip and run approaches to 50 yards, because they're basically using an extended putting stroke.

By starting people with a putting stroke, and slowly but surely increasing the backswing, we can actually get people taking competent full swings without asking them to toil away at the range before having fun. The best part about this system, is that there is there is plenty of room for interesting and entertaining architecture from putting, to chipping, to full swing pitch and putts. When I was in Edinburgh, the advanced players had extremely intense matches at the Bruntsfield links while playing with absolute beginners and everyone had fun.

If there were any place where I think radical change could be made, it would be in creating a standard low-density safety ball for short courses, simply to alleviate some of the safety concerns that our rock hard polybutadiene balls create.

[Charlie Goerges]

Geoff Shackelford did a nice article about the Golf It! facility mentioned in the document. What I liked about it was how it was treated as a community resource. But also, they work really hard to remove the intimidation factor for newer players and even encourage things like tag-alongs in order to make it a fun and welcoming place. Sounds like a great vibe, even if play is likely a little slow (something which bothers me a lot less than most here).

[Niall C]

Charlie


I'm a Glasgow boy and have played Golf It! as well as the Lethamhill course that was there before. Lethamhill was an 18 hole municipal that had been there for over a 100 years and I'd hazard a guess got as much play as Golf It! gets now. I suspect the only difference is that more people actually pay a greenfee now, even though it is more expensive for 9 holes than it was for 18, and that the course is in much better condition.


I like what Scott has designed but it takes as much overall ground as the 18 hole course did and I liked that also. Now there's a driving range which there wasn't before plus the crazy golf and F&B offerings that weren't there before either. Before there was only a clubhouse from the "concrete bunker" school of Scottish architecture. Basically toilets, changing rooms and somewhere to pay the greenfee if you were so minded and could find someone to pay. Now I'm quite sure that the new facility is more financially viable than the old I do wonder how much of that is down to the F&B and it's location next to a popular park, and how much down to the fact that the old facility was so badly run is perhaps debatable. I also wonder if it will succeed in bringing more people into the game than the old 18 hole course.


Niall

[Charlie Goerges]

Charlie


I'm a Glasgow boy and have played Golf It! as well as the Lethamhill course that was there before. Lethamhill was an 18 hole municipal that had been there for over a 100 years and I'd hazard a guess got as much play as Golf It! gets now. I suspect the only difference is that more people actually pay a greenfee now, even though it is more expensive for 9 holes than it was for 18, and that the course is in much better condition.


I like what Scott has designed but it takes as much overall ground as the 18 hole course did and I liked that also. Now there's a driving range which there wasn't before plus the crazy golf and F&B offerings that weren't there before either. Before there was only a clubhouse from the "concrete bunker" school of Scottish architecture. Basically toilets, changing rooms and somewhere to pay the greenfee if you were so minded and could find someone to pay. Now I'm quite sure that the new facility is more financially viable than the old I do wonder how much of that is down to the F&B and it's location next to a popular park, and how much down to the fact that the old facility was so badly run is perhaps debatable. I also wonder if it will succeed in bringing more people into the game than the old 18 hole course.


Niall

Niall,


I didn't know that about the price of 9 being higher than the old 18-hole price. That certainly isn't ideal. I'm prepared to accept the changes aren't an improvement, but I wonder if the idea was the 18-hole course was heading toward closure and this revitalization was needed?


The main thing I liked was the focus on making the experience less intimidating to newcomers, which often isn't a consideration of most golf courses. I wonder what your thoughts on that aspect might be?

[Tony_Muldoon]

2 weeks ago I finally got to play the Short Course at North Berwick, described within the article as possibly the oldest surviving.  Whilst it falls into the general description of Pitch & Putt, it has the most variety in length of holes of the 25 or so such courses I've played. I was told the greens were expanded earlier this year but remain very small (but not as tiny as typical) but suited to the length of the holes. Played at a speed not disimilar to the main course and rolled true. There's elevation change, features llike sunken greens and a few revetted bunkers.  It would take a wild shot to lose a ball.
 Standout hole is the 7th. "St Andrews". 94 yards with a large mound in front of the green and a bunker behind. You can just see the right edge of the green from the tee and that's the safe line.
I need to go back and practice because in two rounds, playing 2 balls each time, I recorded no 2's.  Also I would have settled for one par on the uphill 2nd!
You can play with a member of one of the towns clubs. Green fee £5.   There are annual tickets for local children. 

[Niall C]

Charlie


On the thread "Golf in Scotland is sinking fast" about pages 8 or 9 I posted quite a bit on Glasgow muni's and how badly they were run, so to answer you're question they were definitely failing. You could probably say they'd been continually failing for decades, at least financially. A wee bit of investment and a commitment would have worked wonders I'm sure.


However the fact remains that Lethamhill, like Glasgow's other municipal courses, was well used by casual, infrequent and beginner players. In Geoff's article he refers to seeing players joining their friends armed with only one club, well that's certainly nothing new. As an aside, Lethamhill also had a few clubs attached in the same manner as at St Andrews, Carnoustie and Monifieth. One of them, the Victoria Club recently had it's trophies up for auction so I guess they've given up the ghost. One of the trophies was first played for in 1913. Would they still be going if the old set up had remained ?


Niall