[Jim Colton]

Saw that this was posted on the Links top renovation thread, but felt it deserved its own thread for discussion. The article argues in favor of a ~80% ball to allow for still thrilling golf on sites with interesting features for golf but too small for full scale feasibility. Could a Lil Pine Valley club close to a metro area find enough of a following to work?

http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/little-pine-valley

[jeffwarne]

Saw that this was posted on the Links top renovation thread, but felt it deserved its own thread for discussion. The article argues in favor of a ~80% ball to allow for still thrilling golf on sites with interesting features for golf but too small for full scale feasibility. Could a Lil Pine Valley club close to a metro area find enough of a following to work?

http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/little-pine-valley

or you could just roll back the ball...
That's the easy part

building a Lil Pine valley--not so easy

[Brett_Morrissy]

Jim,
I think the idea is a great one, to go out one day and play a course with current gear and an 80% ball, with the full challenge, and walk 20% less distance, " I get to hit it more!" and then the next day go out with a set of hickories and a current bqll(if they are rally suitable for hickories?" and have a same but different challenge, would be great.

Are there balls on the market today that already serve this purpose? I recall hitting a ball I'd bought for my wife, that seemed to go "no where", had a translucent pearl cover.

I assume construction and relative land costs would still be similar to a full scale Pine Valley construction, but maintenance would be less, less turf to cut, fertilize, spray, etc.

To me the biggest benefit would be the advantage of building closer to a larger population base, would be of great benefit.

[Scott Warren]

Northern Sydney is full of courses on good land, but about 30 acres less of it than they would have ideally had.

A concept like this would allow those courses to realise their potential more. But as for that, if they were brave enough to build a really fun, sporty 5200m/5700y course they could have a better course AND modern technology.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think that having a few courses that employed a different golf ball would work well.  It was tried with the Cayman ball, with little success.  The reason is that while we spend so much time talking about driving distance, approach shots are a matter of range calibration and the short game is a matter of feel, and serious golfers do not want to go back and forth between two different balls that play dramatically differently in those areas.

If everyone switched to an 80% ball, or if some players used the 80% ball all the time and others never did, that would be fine.

As to building a Lil Pine Valley, Jeff Warne has it right -- it wouldn't be any easier than building a big one.  It would just take a bit less land.

[Jud_T]

So you'd only be waiting on every shot for 3 1/2 hours instead of 5...

[Terry Lavin]

I'd be happy to take you to Lil Pine Valley. It's in New Buffalo, Michigan. It's called Dunes Club.

[Michael George]

I'd be happy to take you to Lil Pine Valley. It's in New Buffalo, Michigan. It's called Dunes Club.

+1  Loved every minute of it last year at gca outing. 

[Tom Dunne]

Tom Doak,

In this article I wondered if the past precedent of the Cayman ball might be misleading--50% is a huge cut that makes it feel like you're playing Wiffleball, while the 80% range still (in my opinion) feels like real golf and isn't that far removed from the distances of a generation ago.  

Your point about switching back and forth is perceptive. A friend of mine who read an early draft of this said, "Wait, how will I know my yardages at this course?" I asked him if he played this type of golf a handful of times, would he not be able to keep two sets of yardages in his mind? He wasn't sure. This from a guy who crunches numbers for a living. I'm not belittling this concern at all--it just surprised me that this could come close to being a deal-breaker given some of the other advantages I outlined.

Brett Morrissy,

A couple of months ago, I played Ridgewood in NJ with hickories and the TaylorMade Penta from the forward tees. Of course, the primary challenge with this kind of golf is finding the center of the clubface--especially with the driver--but the couple of times I did the ball traveled approximately as far as what I'd get from my modern driver (at least it felt that way, I didn't measure). Things got especially interesting from 100 yards and in, though, as I found myself worrying about bunkers and other features that would practically be invisible to me with a modern wedge in my hands. No doubt, it's a cool way to see a golf course.

[Tim Nugent]

Tom Doak,

  

Your point about switching back and forth is perceptive. A friend of mine who read an early draft of this said, "Wait, how will I know my yardages at this course?" I asked him if he played this type of golf a handful of times, would he not be able to keep two sets of yardages in his mind? He wasn't sure. This from a guy who crunches numbers for a living. I'm not belittling this concern at all--it just surprised me that this could come close to being a deal-breaker given some of the other advantages I outlined.

Here's a simple solution, just mark the course in 80% "yards".  i.e. 1 yd = 28.8".  If your 8 iron goes 160 yards, then on the 80% course it will still go 160 "yards".  That would take all the mental math out of the equation.  Having played all last season on course marked in Meters, it took awhile to get used to the 10% conversion and that's about as easy as it gets.

[Jim Colton]

I don't think that having a few courses that employed a different golf ball would work well.  It was tried with the Cayman ball, with little success.  The reason is that while we spend so much time talking about driving distance, approach shots are a matter of range calibration and the short game is a matter of feel, and serious golfers do not want to go back and forth between two different balls that play dramatically differently in those areas.

If everyone switched to an 80% ball, or if some players used the 80% ball all the time and others never did, that would be fine.

As to building a Lil Pine Valley, Jeff Warne has it right -- it wouldn't be any easier than building a big one.  It would just take a bit less land.

Tom,

What would you do if you were faced with a potential site that was only big enough to yield 13-14 great regulation holes? Would an alternative option like Lil PV even come up? I recall you looking at some hickory-centric project in Omaha. Was the hickory thing driven by the site or something the client wanted?

[Howard Riefs]

Reminds me of 16 inch softball in Chicago. Alter the ball to compete in a confined space.

"Softball was very popular in Chicago especially indoor action in armories. The reason that the ball was 16" in size was based on one main reason. The parks and schoolyards were so small 14" balls flew out into the street. The 16" ball worked perfectly.."

http://www.16inchsoftballhof.com/history.asp

[Tom Dunne]

Jim C.,

Oh yeah! Randy Jensen was a part of that Omaha project, I believe, along with Gary Wiren.

Jensen was the subject of one of my favorite features from the old T+L Golf days, "The Hickory Tiger". (Not shilling here, I had nothing to do with this article.)

http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/the-hickory-tiger

I'll guess the explanation as to why this one didn't take off is similar to most other new course ideas of the past couple of years, but I'd love to hear more about it.

[Emile Bonfiglio]

I don't think that having a few courses that employed a different golf ball would work well.  It was tried with the Cayman ball, with little success.  The reason is that while we spend so much time talking about driving distance, approach shots are a matter of range calibration and the short game is a matter of feel, and serious golfers do not want to go back and forth between two different balls that play dramatically differently in those areas.

If everyone switched to an 80% ball, or if some players used the 80% ball all the time and others never did, that would be fine.

As to building a Lil Pine Valley, Jeff Warne has it right -- it wouldn't be any easier than building a big one.  It would just take a bit less land.

Tom,

What would you do if you were faced with a potential site that was only big enough to yield 13-14 great regulation holes? Would an alternative option like Lil PV even come up? I recall you looking at some hickory-centric project in Omaha. Was the hickory thing driven by the site or something the client wanted?

Wasn't that somewhat the case with Bandon Preserve (not enough land to build a full course, thus the par 3 course vision). Clearly Mike K understands that you don't need 18 holes to have a great course (Dunes Club). However I do think Hickory at Bandon could be gimmicky especially for what you pay in green fees. I guess this is why they have Old Bandon Golf Links. Back to my point, would the land the Preserve is built on been a good model for this?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()