Cross-country putting courses

[Mark Fedeli]

Had a conversation on twitter recently about whether the next trend at the new Bandon-style resorts might be “cross-country” putting courses. That is, courses that are similar in length to all the new par 3 courses that are being built, but that only allow a putter, forcing you to plot your way around with the ball on the ground.


So for example, you could have holes that range in length from 50 to 200 yards, and they could have some bunkers to avoid and tons of humps and hollows and land movement to navigate through and help provide extra propulsion. There’d also be blind shots and a lot of situations where the proper play is not obvious, or where your ball disappears from view or runs away in unforeseen directions. You’d have a lot of slopes, hills, valleys, and pathways to choose from off the tee, but not a lot of certainty about which combination of options were best to get you to the hole most efficiently.


The holes wouldn’t have pars on the card, but taking anywhere from 2 to 4 shots to reach the “green” would be commonplace. In many cases, you’d have to think very hard starting from the tee shot which routing you’re going to take to the hole and which “targets” you’re going to aim for with each shot.


The idea is to provide an experience that very few golfers ever have: playing multiple consecutive shots on the ground, using only feel and instinct and strategy. I think it’d be incredibly eye-opening for a lot of players, especially those that think “ground game” is only something that happens occasionally on the last shot before a ball goes in the hole. Make the entire hole be ground game and give people a new appreciation for what the ball does when it’s rolling on interesting terrain.

[Thomas Dai]

Certainly an idea. Strength of putters and hosel's would need consideration, easy to damage a clubhead with a poorly contacted big swipe.
As an aside there's a chap in Aussie who uses a 1-club approach to getting new starters into the game - worth a look - https://1club.golf/ - 9-iron length, 4-iron loft I believe.
atb

[Mark Fedeli]

Certainly an idea. Strength of putters and hosel's would need consideration, easy to damage a clubhead with a poorly contacted big swipe.
As an aside there's a chap in Aussie who uses a 1-club approach to getting new starters into the game - worth a look - https://1club.golf/ - 9-iron length, 4-iron loft I believe.
atb

Sure, you could adjust the size of ball, club head, and hole and make it it’s own brand of golf. And maybe that would be more fun, an even more exaggerated version of what I suggested. Could be great. I’d probably rather bring the scale down a bit but keep standard equipment in play. Everything doesn’t need to be full whacks—it’s more important that you’re playing consecutive ground shots to targets that aren’t the green or the hole. You’re being forced to plot around using your smarts and your imagination.

[Peter Flory]

We just did a bit of that at the punchbowl when it cleared out before sunset last week.  Essentially played some holes that took 2-3 putts to even get within range of the hole (and by going full wrist break and weight shift).  So, par 4 and par 5 type routes.  It was a lot of fun.  But the downside is just that you're practicing a type of shot that you'd rarely hit otherwise. 

[Mark Fedeli]

But the downside is just that you're practicing a type of shot that you'd rarely hit otherwise.

That’s the upside! We talk so much about the importance of the ground game, but for most of us, we’re rarely forced to play it on the ground as often as we’re forced to play it in the air. Heck, we’re straight-up never forced to play it on the ground ever. To do so in the manner I’m describing would be a foreign experience for a lot of golfers, but it would also be a highly valuable experience that might open people’s mind to different ways to think about and approach their regular game, and their preferences for their regular game. 

[Michael Felton]

Hi Mark,


I really like this idea. I think it could be fascinating to have significant elevation changes come into play as well. Where you're going uphill, you could have ledges on the way up that you need to stop it on, but if you try to go up too many and the ball stops half way up a hill, it has enough momentum to take it well back down again, over more than one ledge. For downhill holes, you could build in some contours such that to get to the hole you have to take it wide and if you get the line wrong you could wind up falling down below the hole and running well away from where you're going. Could introduce some real strategy too. If you're aggressive and go for the hole in one go, you have to thread the needle on a long swing with a putter. Alternatively, you could take safer routes that mean you'll have to take 2 or 3 shots to get near the hole, but without taking on that risk.

[Mark Fedeli]

That's exactly what I was thinking, Mike. The "hazards" should mainly be the movement of the land. I think you could still have some bunkers and what not for variety, and just have a drop area or something, but getting stuck in a grass coffin might be even better.


One of the first places that made me think of this idea was the Loma Club at Point Loma in San Diego. It's a terrific little par 3 course with great land movement and a killer atmosphere. The bar and terrace that's there is super cool and would be a place you'd want to hang out golf or not. The big problem with it all was that it took entirely too long to play considering how short it is and the astroturf tee boxes. It's a great place for beginners, and there were a lot of them out there, and they were all over the yard taking FOREVER to play each hole and taking each shot way too seriously. It was enough to make me never want to go back despite how cool the place and the course was.


So I was thinking, would this be better for beginners and for everyone else if it was putting only? They wouldn't spend 15 minutes a hole duffing chips and hitting shanks, and they'd probably have a lot more fun getting to the hole — or at least have a lot more consistent experience. I think there are other pitch and putt courses where someone can go and grind out that aspect of the game, but if you're trying to create a great "golf experience" for players of all skills and social styles, the putting course might be a better way to go. Creates a lot less "us" and "them" between beginners and advanced, as well. A lot of advanced players suck at putting too, or still get nervous the same way beginners do, or have just as limited experience playing along the ground this kind of way.

[Thomas Dai]

Is the success of the Himalayas at St A because it isn't too big. Would it be as popular and user friendly if the holes were significantly longer and the overall playing area much bigger? Open ended question I guess.
As an aside, what about having a usual length par-3 on a regular course that is say 95% putting green with loads of undulation but still hs a teeing area from where players could either hit regular shots or putt as they desire? Has this been attempted and if so what was the outcome?
atb

[Mark Fedeli]

Is the success of the Himalayas at St A because it isn't too big. Would it be as popular and user friendly if the holes were significantly longer and the overall playing area much bigger? Open ended question I guess.
As an aside, what about having a usual length par-3 on a regular course that is say 95% putting green with loads of undulation but still hs a teeing area from where players could either hit regular shots or putt as they desire? Has this been attempted and if so what was the outcome?
atb

I think the length of grass used throughout the hole depends on what the facility can make available. There should be a decent “green cut” where the hole is so putting out is fully satisfying, but at places like Sand Valley and Bandon, you might be able to have one cut the whole way around. Maybe the course also provides a second putter with a bigger face and more loft for the longer lag putts and then you use your regular putter for putts closer in toward the hole. 



I think the point is definitely to force people into putting. There should be no other option but ground. And to force them to think their way around the course on the ground. Mike’s examples are great about how this could be done in exciting and challenging ways just using land movement. I don’t know how successful it would be compared to regular par 3 courses and existing putting courses, but I do think it’s a very specific experience with very specific goals and outcomes that are different from those other set-ups and could be potentially revelatory for a lot of golfers. And again, I think the ability to remove the shank or duffed chip from the equation yet still have a full-length hole experience can’t be discounted when we’re talking about beginners and after-dinner drunk matches.

[Ben Hollerbach]

What you're describing sounds a lot like Japanese Park Golf

[Mark Fedeli]

Kind of, Ben. But definitely a more refined version where the quality and challenge of the holes matches what we see at the big resorts or nicer par 3s. I think it's important not to introduce it as some lesser version of the game where you take the most boring land and give it the least maintenance. That's kind of why I scoff a little bit at the idea of introducing the lag putter to go along with a regular putter. It should stay as closely rooted to "real golf" as possible. But it should also be match play only — no pars on the holes, no indication of what you "should" do other than beat your competitor into the hole.


Obviously I'm getting way ahead of myself, but I've found it to be a fascinating thing to think about.

[Michael Felton]

I guess one thing to consider is if you're thinking of having holes be over 100 yards in length and having options of routes and putting only, then maintenance is going to be very expensive. Unless you go with an astroturf option, in which case start up costs are going to be very expensive.

[Mark Fedeli]

I guess one thing to consider is if you're thinking of having holes be over 100 yards in length and having options of routes and putting only, then maintenance is going to be very expensive. Unless you go with an astroturf option, in which case start up costs are going to be very expensive.

It wouldn't be any different than The Cradle, The Sandbox, The Preserve, etc etc. Those are turning out to be some of the most fun and successful and in-demand courses at those entire facilities. And in theory, putting versions of them would be shorter and require less maintenance because of fewer divots and the need for fewer dramatic traditional hazards. A couple holes could still be potential one-shotters on the long-ish end, like 50 yards, but most would be in the 50-150 yard range, with then at least a few of the "cross-country" style ones that might stretch to 200 yards and beyond. All depends on the land, of course.

[Steve Lang]

   If you want to inspire ground game visualization and play, seems easier to do the bocce ball thing, perfect for kids to adults, like at Ballyneal...   

[Mark Fedeli]

  If you want to inspire ground game visualization and play, seems easier to do the bocce ball thing, perfect for kids to adults, like at Ballyneal...

I would think footgolf would be even better for the visualization part.


I think what's important about this particular idea is that it is "real golf." It's not visualization. It's giving people golf on the ground on real holes with real challenge and strategy and hopefully opening their mind to the power of the ground game. Perhaps even more importantly, it's giving them "real golf" without the potential for error from lack of physical skill (duffs, shanks, thins, fats, etc). Chipping and pitching is hard!


But with this, you can eliminate some of that but still need the focus required to play a fully realized hole with demanding strategic decisions (blind shots, multiple options and routings, penalties for poor choices, hitting each shot with the next few in mind, etc). You can't just thoughtlessly blast it over everything. It's forcing thought, forcing strategy, at the expense of some physical skill or experience.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Kind of, Ben. But definitely a more refined version where the quality and challenge of the holes matches what we see at the big resorts or nicer par 3s. I think it's important not to introduce it as some lesser version of the game where you take the most boring land and give it the least maintenance. That's kind of why I scoff a little bit at the idea of introducing the lag putter to go along with a regular putter. It should stay as closely rooted to "real golf" as possible. But it should also be match play only — no pars on the holes, no indication of what you "should" do other than beat your competitor into the hole.


Obviously I'm getting way ahead of myself, but I've found it to be a fascinating thing to think about.

I think the principles are the same, but you're wanting to take Park Golf and put it on steroids.


You previously mentioned redesigning the equipment, which would probably be needed to keep the ball being played on the ground and prohibit people from still hitting it airborne for extended distance.  Park Golf seems already well suited for that, and the larger ball could allow for the turf to be kept longer than a traditional green and reduce the maintenance demand.


Park Golf courses are someone simplistic, but it seems entirely possible to take a Park Golf club and ball and play a course like the Cradle and get exactly what you want.


It won't be park golf, but it also won't be just playing a short course with only a putter. Maybe what you need is a Ping DOC putter and a Magna ball?

[Mark Fedeli]

Kind of, Ben. But definitely a more refined version where the quality and challenge of the holes matches what we see at the big resorts or nicer par 3s. I think it's important not to introduce it as some lesser version of the game where you take the most boring land and give it the least maintenance. That's kind of why I scoff a little bit at the idea of introducing the lag putter to go along with a regular putter. It should stay as closely rooted to "real golf" as possible. But it should also be match play only — no pars on the holes, no indication of what you "should" do other than beat your competitor into the hole.


Obviously I'm getting way ahead of myself, but I've found it to be a fascinating thing to think about.

I think the principles are the same, but you're wanting to take Park Golf and put it on steroids.


You previously mentioned redesigning the equipment, which would probably be needed to keep the ball being played on the ground and prohibit people from still hitting it airborne for extended distance.  Park Golf seems already well suited for that, and the larger ball could allow for the turf to be kept longer than a traditional green and reduce the maintenance demand.


Park Golf courses are someone simplistic, but it seems entirely possible to take a Park Golf club and ball and play a course like the Cradle and get exactly what you want.


It won't be park golf, but it also won't be just playing a short course with only a putter. Maybe what you need is a Ping DOC putter and a Magna ball?

All good points. My only worry would be somehow delegitimizing it or making it seem "lesser than" once you bring in a separate set of equipment that isn't used in regular golf. Something I'm on the fence about here at my make believe cross country putting course.

[Ben Hollerbach]

All good points. My only worry would be somehow delegitimizing it or making it seem "lesser than" once you bring in a separate set of equipment that isn't used in regular golf. Something I'm on the fence about here at my make believe cross country putting course.

For too many they will see your cross country putting course as a step above putt putt, not a step below regular play. Because the type of play you desire is relatively uncommon in "normal" play of golf, it won't be entirely viewed as practice or productive and will fall in the realm of oddity. I don't believe that the use of new equipment will diminish that any further.


Within the context of Pinehurst, what you're describing is blend between Thistle Dhu and the Cradle. It's going to be an auxiliary game that people play after a round on one of the main courses, with a beer in their hand. As long as players have the ability to be competitive and be rewarded for good play it will find its place among the other amenities.

[Ben Malach]

I played one putting course with maintained  greens surrounded by roughs. It was a novelty at the back of a driving range it was ok but after a couple of years they rebuilt and converted the course to artificial turf. I can only assume that it is due to inherent problems of a course of this nature. As it requires a higher level of detail to pull off as a majority of days you would need to walk mow, Trim the rough and transitions, blow the course off, cut holes (make sure the plug is perfect due to the small cupping area.), and then you open for play. Where as on a traditional large green putting course you can run a Tri-Flex, Blow it off,  cut some holes, and your open for play.


As you can see its a little easier every day to have the larger putting green. Also in the long run the larger space allows you to limit wear. The larger green is also safer as if you lose a part of the green or something happens and you desperately need greens sod for the real course you can cut some from a corner of the green. You can do this because you have the room to move holes to let the green heal.


All this being said I think that you can make a very interesting putting course that moves you around or though an area to 3 or 4 mid size greens. I think, this is the point wear your really making meat of what you can call a round of golf.

[Peter Gannon]

I thought when you first mentioned "cross country" putting course, it would be super cool cross country.  Meaning, take a place like Bandon or Sand Valley, and you could take the cross country course from your room to the clubhouse, range, first tee of various courses, etc.  Like The Sandbox, but stretch out linear.  Starting one place, ending up in another.  Going on an adventure.  (forget the practical reasons that won't work).


I heard Tom Doak talking about a full 18 through rough terrain in Napa, or N California, where the best routing was to start one place, end up at another, and have to take a shuttle back.  Pretty cool concept. 


I liked when you talked about it being like 68 holes or something.  Pick it up at different points on property?  I'm sure impossible, but would be pretty neat. Playing the 18th at Sand Valley only with putter was a trip!  Uphill par 5.  There was definite strategy involved.  And one left handed bunker shot with my Scotty Cameron involved.  I think it was a 9? 

[David_Tepper]

The 200-Yard Putt!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmZeQGjwb8U

[Mark Fedeli]

I thought when you first mentioned "cross country" putting course, it would be super cool cross country.  Meaning, take a place like Bandon or Sand Valley, and you could take the cross country course from your room to the clubhouse, range, first tee of various courses, etc.  Like The Sandbox, but stretch out linear.  Starting one place, ending up in another.  Going on an adventure.  (forget the practical reasons that won't work).


I heard Tom Doak talking about a full 18 through rough terrain in Napa, or N California, where the best routing was to start one place, end up at another, and have to take a shuttle back.  Pretty cool concept. 


I liked when you talked about it being like 68 holes or something.  Pick it up at different points on property?  I'm sure impossible, but would be pretty neat. Playing the 18th at Sand Valley only with putter was a trip!  Uphill par 5.  There was definite strategy involved.  And one left handed bunker shot with my Scotty Cameron involved.  I think it was a 9?

Fantastic idea! That would be the pinnacle of the cross-country idea. Imagine a loop that goes around the entire property, with varying food and drink options along the way, giving you glimpses of the different holes/courses/facilities, and you could "get off of the ride" whenever/wherever you wanted.


I was certainly also inspired by the final hole of our Sand Valley experience. Granted, the 18th on Sand Valley is not the best kind of hole for this — too long, too uphill, not enough micro-features for the scale of the putting course idea — but the fact that we played all 500+ yards of it in 7 & 8 strokes and had a blast doing it shows what can be done with a "longer" putting course.


In the end, I just want people to think about golf purely on the ground, 100% forced to consider angles and strategy to navigate around, ironically, exactly like they would in mini-golf (except in a high-quality pure golf setting). Once loft is introduced, the brain changes, the options change, the goals change. It's different.

[Steve Wilson]

I think I would truly enjoy a cross country putting course almost as much as I would the real game.
In fact, provided I am able to return to Scotland and Golspie next year or at some reasonable time
in the future when I 'm still ambulatory I think I'll tackle that course with a putter.  It might be necessary to  move
up a few yards on some of the holes and to make judicious use of the ladies aid on a few more,
but I think it's playable with a putter. I'd do this very early in the
morning so that the Scots wouldn't realize they had a completely crazy man on the premises.


This would be the ultimate use of the ground game which so many of us profess to love.


David T. I caught that 200 yard putt feature the other day.  It's nice to see professionals having
fun playing the game and playing with the game.


 

[Joe Hellrung]

One of my favorite golf memories is playing the 18 hole putting course at Pinehurst with my 7 best buddies.  Definitely a highlight of the trip.  I could see something like this taking a lot of different shapes and sizes and there are a heck of a lot of great ideas here already. 


I have to think maintenance would be difficult, but I'm not a maintenance guy and don't really know.

[Peter Gannon]

Maintenance would certainly be easier in the UK or Ireland.  Silly American me, I just selfishly wanted it close, but maybe the cross country is actually cross dunes!