Is it a good design if you can't walk it?,

[Rich_M]

In the process of the design of a golf course, when is the question of how "walkable" a course is generally addressed (in selecting property or afterwards).

I believe that the "walkability" of a course is a significant factor in assessing the character and quality of a design.

[Paul Richards]

Rich:

I agree with you that walkability should be a big factor.  I love walking a golf course and much prefer to play and enjoy it that way.

A golf course that is unwalkable or doesn't allow for walking definately falls a notch in my book.

[GeoffreyC]

Rich

In my opinion routing a golf course that allows walking while fitting in with the natural properties of the land is a key factor in building a really good golf course.  A collection of golf holes (even good ones) strung together by cart rides is not my idea of the essence of golf.

[David_Tepper]

While I am also a big believer in walking and tend to avoid courses where riding is compulsory, we should be aware that there are probably many courses that have been built by a developer who has told the GCA either not to worry about whether the course is/is not walkable or just plan on everyone riding. This could be due to maximising house lots or other factors. I don't think the GCA or the course design should necessarily be penalized in those circumstances. I imagine some of the GCAs who frequent this site may comment on this. Seems to me you have to give the clients what they want.
While being forced to ride may lessen your or my enjoyment of our round of golf, it probably should not detract from the quality of the course design, at least in the abstract.

[Forrest Richardson]

I am all for walking, certainly. But, ask yourself this: If there was such a thing as the electric motor in 1835, would bands of gowlfers have at all opted to once in a while take rest and driven across the lowlands? I do not know the answer -- none of us do. But we are able to speculate, which is fun.

Most assuridly there have been some spectacular sites reserved for golf that never would have been had the cart not been available.

Good? Bad? It depends.

[texsport]

I think that it depends upon whether you wish to play golf or go for a walk and play golf. Design is design. I don't see the word walk anywhere in the word design.

Just three points, all stated previously on other posts on the walking.

(1) When it's 105 degrees outside, nobody walks anyway. It has been documented on this site that play falls off dramatically during hot weather in the South and Southwest. Whether you can walk or not doesn't matter.

(2) Some of the most spectacular properties available for golf course development are not walker friendly. This is a fact of 21st century population distributions and densities. If a course wants to break even, it had better be near golfers.

(3) Most new courses could not even be justified or built without factoring in cart revenue.

For these reasons, the awarding of extra rating points to courses allowing walking falsely over rates the design of these courses.

For me it's a choice between idealism and realism. If idealism is the goal, most would favor walking. In the real world, 75%+ of golfers ride a cart.

TXsport

[Forrest Richardson]

texsport -- I walked Papago Muni (Phoenix) in 122-degree weather about 7 years ago. We all commented it felt like "105-degrees". But, you are correct -- in certain climates and elevations there is a need, often, for carts. I cannot fathom visiting Breckenridge, CO (8,000 feet above sea level) and planning on an 18-hole walking round after landing from a home elevation where it may be close to sea level. Can it be done? Yes, of course. That's why they mount heart defibrillators every few holes now-a-days.

[noonan]

Must be walkable

Jerry

[Forrest Richardson]

What must be walkable?

[Jim Sweeney]

I truly understand the point made by the architects who come here that they sometimes are restricted as to where they can design, and their courses shouldn't be penalized for that.

However, just as some people are born with the silver spoon, some courses are created out of perfect environs, and to me that must mean the course will be walkable.

Here's an interesting little story. I walked Paa-Ko Ridge, outside of Albuquerque, one afternoon. Playing from as far back as possible (about 7600 yds, at 6500 ft.) we often had to backtrack 50-100 yds and climb 30-40 feet to get to the tee. Thank goodness it took 5 hrs to play! If play had moved any faster (we waited almost every shot) it would have been impossible to keep up! Good course, BTW. Beautiful scenery. A few really funky greens.

[Forrest Richardson]

Golf is played between your ears, mostly. While I support walking I cannot, in good allegiance, consider walking an absolute right, nor either the "quality of all qualities." There are many traditions in golf that are terrific, but rarely do all these traditions show up and present themselves as appropriate all at one time. Each site, course, day, golfer, event and forsome are unique.

[Jim Sweeney]

Forrest:

I couldn't agree with you more. Gary Plyer is lampooned for saying something like "this is the best course of its kind I've ever played." In a very real sense, he's right, because no two courses are alike. I also remember something from a book that listed him as the author in which he said he had to respect every hole, play it as if it were the hardest hole he ever played, in order to compete successfully.

I haven't played as many courses a most (probably) of the posters on this sight have played. I have played 65 of the course on last year's Golf Digest list. I don't recall any of them which weren't walkable to a person of reasonable physical well being, not that there might not be some challenges.

All courses are unwalkable for some. Some courses are unwalkable for all. It's those in the latter catagory that concern this thread. When any factor is absolute- be it un-walkability, or unreachable forced carries, etc., doesn't one have to take that into consideration?

[Forrest Richardson]

Well, I think you hit it on the head with the comment about not ALL can fit ALL. Golf -- and courses -- are individual endeavors to be enjoyed in a variety of ways. Courses should not have to be set to a standard of walking anymore than churches need be conducive to having every pew within close range of the pulpit.

[Buck Wolter]

Doesn't this relate to the Sport vs Game discussion. Let's face it, if health isn't an issue anything is walkable. I actually enjoy hoofing a bag up a tough walk and trying to hit a drive with the blood pumping a little. I don't always walk but when I don't golf is a game not a sport. There's very little difference to me between cart golf and bowling.

On a side note --I wanted to puke when I heard Curtis talk about how tough it was for the guys at La Costa to have to walk that far on spongy ground for up to 36 holes/day. They are supposed to be athletes and they aren't even carrying a bag. Soccer moms walk faster than these guys pushing strollers.

[Tough Guy Walker]

I've never once seen a golf course that I could not walk. If you can mow it, I can walk it. What's all this nonsense about walking? Why even factor it in? If you can't walk a course just because there is some distance between tees and greens, then maybe you should ride or take up billiards. I wear a long walk to the next tee like a badge of courage. I don't hear linebackers in the NFL complain because the games last too long. Blaming the course because walking to the next tee is too much work has nothing to do with golf shot values, whatever those are. If you are going to blame the course design because the walk to the next tee takes the wind out of your sails, then why not blame the driving range for encroaching on your view? Focus on the task at hand. That is your job on the golf course.

Now everyone get out there and walk like you mean it!

[Forrest Richardson]

Can we briefly discuss running?

When I was about 16 one of my uncles invited me to play with "their usual group" at Papago Muni (seen above in another post). I showed up at what I recall was about 4:30am. I barely had time to put my shoes on when these geezers were literally running through the gate and onto the first tee. It was still dark for God's sake!

We teed off into the southern sky, using the moon as a guide. I never found my perfect drive, instead dropping a ball and calling it good. These old 80-year-olds ran after they made attempts at putts, leaving the green and pulling their trollies to the next tee.

At No. 5 they simply left the No. 4 green green and teed it up in the fifth fairway as it was too much bother to run back to the tee.

I swear we finished 18 holes in under 2.5 hours...I was not only tired, but I found that I had almost an hour before having to shower for work.

This was not walking -- but they thought so!

[Bill Yates]

Forrest:

I played at Carnoustie last weekend with three locals.  the temperature was 4 degrees centigrade and the wind was blowing at 15 to 20 mph.  Along with a sweater, shirt and heavy pants I was wearing a coat, knit cap, golf mittens (a great invention by the way).  We all carried and walked.

Walking was essential because as the game in Scotland is played year round, the only way to keep warm (underneath all of the wool I was wearing I was sweating) and keep loose, the brisk walk made it all possible as well as a once-in-a-lifetime experience.  And yes, even an American can play a round on Saturday morning teeing off at 11:00 and finish in 3 hours 25 minutes.

Thread #2 - golf is a sport (if played without a cart it requires physical exercise and stamina) and it's a game (wind, quirky bounces, blind shots, no yardage markers and all the rest that cannot or should not be controlled, fuel our passion for this great game).

Bill

[Forrest Richardson]

My fond memory was playing Carnoustie the Tuesday after Watson won the Monday playoff in 1976. What a thrill! Grandstands still up, camera cranes, etc.  

P.S.  Bill, your job is becoming too fun!

[Jim_H]

Answering the specific question, the answer in my opinion is NO.  That isn't to say that riding shouldn't be allowed (although, as an aside, the new course planned for Pebble Beach is planned to be walking only--and Bandon/Pacific Dunes are almost so).  But courses that are almost virtually unwalkable for the vast majority of golfers are not good courses in my opinion.
That is my biggest complaint with most Fazio courses.  It may be a developer issue in many cases, but the distances between the greens and next tees are absurd in many of his designs.

[henrye]

I think the issue of a "walkable" layout is considered at the outset, but if a course design is explored properly the question of walkability vs. best hole layouts and routing can often conflict with each other.  As an example, I am a member of a resort course north of Toronto.  The availability of large properties situated on exclusive lakesides and suitable for golf course construction is limited and expensive.  When the developer purchased the property they hired an architect to design a "championship" course.  The result was a course with what I consider to be the best individual hole layouts the property had to offer.  The issue was that the topography made it difficult to walk from green to tee on 2 different holes.  The solution was/is to have club employees shuttle players between the green and the tee on those 2 particular holes, thus allowing players who choose to walk the course to do so without being exhausted.  It has worked very well and has resulted in a number of the members choosing to walk rather than take a cart.  Some players (few) actually walk the entire course; the distances on the 2 difficult walks take no more than 5 minutes each  but they include steep hills and are not walking friendly.

[A.G._Crockett]

I would much prefer, all other things equal, to walk a golf course.  I suspect that the vast majority of the people who frequent this website are of a like mind.

However, in Economics, the Law of Increasing Opportunity Costs tells us that the land best suited to golf courses is quickly used that way.  As more and more courses are built, there will be more and more land used which is less and less suitable for the purpose at hand.  That means that either it is unwalkable for much of the golfing public, or construction costs were so high that carts must be required and/or real estate sold to generate enough revenue to make the venture profitable, or some such permutation that renders walking impossible.

Viewed this way, walking probably should only be a criteria for great architecture if you want to greatly limit the consideration of most modern courses.

Of course, the real value of this post is probably to remind you how fortunate you are to no longer be in college Econ. classes...

[THuckaby2]

Careful here... I believe the question isn't are unwalkable courses GOOD COURSES (call that the Kapalua Plantation question) but rather are such GOOD DESIGN...

At least to me these are two totally different questions.  Of course I fall on the side that a good course is a good course if the shot values are high, with walkability being a definite positive and something to strive for, but not a requirement... others disagree vehemently, and we've argued this many times in here.

So I'd say it can be both good design and a good course...

But re this thread, the question is good design.

And to answer that, I can't see anyone calling Kapalua Plantation anything but GREAT design, and it is a very, very difficult walk.  Talk about making the most out of a difficult site....

Isn't that the question here?  Or do I have this all wrong?

TH

[henrye]

Tom, I agree with you, but I think the question was WHEN does the "Walkable" question come into play.  I think the answer is that it is there from the start, but when an architect starts to evaluate the property there are almost always some tradeoffs.

Looking at Rich's question, and your example of Kapalua, shows that wonderful golf course course design can result from an essentially unwalkable property.

Also, I think one has to consider the tradeoffs if by making a course walkable you eliminate the potential to create a superior grouping of hole layouts.

[THuckaby2]

Absolute concurrence here, Henrye - and that was very well set out.  Those are the key questions without a doubt.

Tradeoffs exist from BOTH ends of this, and we can't forget that.

TH

[Jeff Fortson]

Part of what makes a routing good is the walkability of it.  I believe that you can design great holes free of a necessity to walk but IMHO you can't have a good routing without walkability included in it.  So from a technical stance I would say that you can design a great hole without being walkable but not a great course in my eyes because walking is an integral part of a great golfing experience for me.  

The walk from a green to the next tee is as an important part of a golfing experience for me as the walk from tee to green.

Jeff F.