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

[Bob_Huntley]

In a previous post an ironman stated that "If you can mow it, he can walk it." I like his style. However, just because the remainder of us cannot, or will not, walk some 400 or 500 yards uphill from green to tee does not mean that the course is without design merit.

Some of my enjoyable rounds have been played in Cabo san Lucas and if anyone finds fault with El Dorado over the absence of walkers then I feel thay are missing a treat.

In fact, I would say that a good number of 'cart-ball' courses have managed, by good design, to allow the game to be played on some pretty uncompromising land.

[Forrest Richardson]

Jeff -- Then, if I hear you correctly, you approve of the walk from Cypress Point No. 14 to No. 15 -- even though it is long-ish. And, even though no carts there, this is OK. But you prefer more mild walks -- short distances that are relatively easy and quick...right?

I do not feel that walkability should account for a significant portion of a course's rating potential. Rather, long distances between greens and tees -- especially when they are chronic -- are what is not desireable in any circumstance. By chronic, I mean at more than 5 or 6 holes.

[danielfaleman]

Golf carts are evil.

[Jeff Fortson]

Forrest,

Unfortunately, I have never played CPC,       so I can't respond to your example of the walk between those two holes.  But, through your example I would say yes, I don't mind long walks as long as it flows with the natural routing of the course.  I look at a round of golf as one good, long walk inside of which I play a game.  I disagree with the Supreme Court of this country that golf is merely just hitting shots.  But that is an entirely different topic.

I like short walks between holes a little more because there is a feeling of true continuity for me when I walk off a green and basically right on to the next tee.  A great example of this would be the walk off the 1st green of NGLA onto the 2nd tee.  It is such a wonderful and quick transition into the next hole.  

However, I do think a longer walk from a green to the next tee is acceptable in the right situation.  If I think of a good example I'll post it later.

Like I said, I think you can design an indivdual great hole without the need for walking, but I think walkability is one of the leading factors to making an entire course "great" in my mind.

Jeff F.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Bob,
I think you are right. Walking in a wonderful part of the game, however, carts have opened up pieces of land that never would have been considered.

Two courses in Hawaii the I really like are both cart-ball. The Prince and Kapalua, which I would happily ride in a cart to play.

[Mike_Cirba]

It might still be a "good design", but by definition, I'd argue that it's not a "great routing".  

I understand that sometimes those forces are outside the direct control of the architect, but we are left to judge the final results and not the processes, circumstances, and decisions that led to that less than desirable result.  

[Bob_Huntley]

danielfaleman.

"Golf carts are evil."

Let me hear you say that with a twice fractured lateral malleolus, banged up knees, an old embolus in the leg and 400 stitches and I will then know that you know of which you speak.

[danielfaleman]

Bob,

Yikes!! Shark bite?

Ok, they're less evil for some than others.

[Forrest Richardson]

Mike C. -- "...we are left to judge the final results and not the processes, circumstances, and decisions..."

How boring a life you must live! Come on, man, architecture is about how the design relates to its environment, figuring out what was done to make the magic, second-guessing, pondering what could have been, and -- mostly -- architecture is about enjoyment of the built environment.

Without contemplation of the significant aspects you do not judge, you are on autopilot and just hovering through the spaces you occupy.

(But I'll still like you.)

[Mike_Cirba]

Forrest;

I believe you missed my point but I'll still like you, too!

What I'm saying is that at the end of the day, the only thing a golfer has to judge the quality of a course by is the end result.  If it is routed such as to be "unwalkable" by anyone other than an Olympic-conditioned athlete, then the factors that led to that result sort of become irrelevant.

Because I'm interested in architecture, I'm still interested in hearing those details, but they don't affect my judgement of the final course one way or another.  The initial thread asked if it could still be unwalkable, yet a good course, and I somewhat grudgingly agreed...only adding that it couldn't by definition be deemed a great routing.

If I find that someone decided to built a course where a combination of wetlands, housing considerations, steep slopes, etc., leads to an unwalkable course, am I supposed to somehow give that course "alibi points" in my own personal determination of the course's attributes simply because of those external factors?  

I am not necessarily faulting the architects.  Sometimes, it's impossible to make lemonade out of spoilt lemons.  

[Matt_Ward]

To answer the thread question -- yes! I take a pragmatic position regarding cart usage. As long as the rides between holes and shots is not some cross-country Indiana Jones adventure I'm OK with it. But my definition is fluid and based on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, for pursits the idea of not walking would probably mean some sort of deduction in overall course assessment, however, given the nature of how courses are designed today it's somewhat romantic and in many cases impractical to accomplish what people were able to do years ago because environmental restrictions of the sort many states face today were not in existence. I dont mean you give modern courses some free pass but I also don't believe one can become super critical because carts are de rigeur in a number of instances. One bad example of forced nonsense is Tattersall just outside of Phillie. This Rees Jones layout is a mindless routing that simply gives you a A+ cart ride but a D- golf day. When you have holes where you must double-back into the line of fire (10th and 11th) you clearly have gone beyond sanity.

There's also the element of facilities maximizing vistas for all sort of things -- namely housing and the like. I don't like all the clutter but as long as it blends in without being a pest I'm generally OK with it. One of the more negative cart ride experiences I had was with another Rees Jones layout called Santaluz in SoCal. Here you have a number of superb holes but the cart rides made Maco Polo's ride back to Europe seem quick. The housing element has simply taken over the entire purpose of the land.

I prefer courses that are neatly tied together and can minimize cart usage (i.e. Skokie, Plainfield, to name just two) but in my mind it's more of situational thing.

[Forrest Richardson]

Good points. I do not care for doubling back -- at least forward motion is a sense of discovery.

So try this Mike C.: Instead of thinking of such a monster as ONE course, think of it as 18 individual 1-hole layouts. Perhaps your opinion will be better!

A course should be judged great if it's fun. In my view the rater should sit quietly on a nearby hill or bluff and close their eyes and listen to the joys, sorrows and conversation of golfers as they pass by or below. This will tell you volumes about a golf course, as will sitting in the pub and checking out the conversation. On-site walking and playing is good, too. But even then there are more dimensions than x, y and z.

[Mike Hendren]

Would the architects who frequent this site be compelled by business considerations to answer YES?  I would think they would justifiably be reluctant to comment on this thread.

Regards,

Mike

[Mike_Cirba]

Forrest;

As much as I'd love to look at a golf COURSE as 18 separate holes, the terms are incongruous.

The term "course" implies something of a contiguous, connected nature, which should have some degree of integration and natural flow.  To have the golf "course" continually broken up with "non-golfing" related ground (i.e. houses, wetlands, property divisions, large climbs or long descents) does have a negative impact on the course, pure and simple, and despite the fact that each individual hole might have quality within it.

The term "routing", as I'm sure you know, talks about how well those individual holes are interconnected, along with with how well the entire property is utilized for golfing purposes.  A routing that is continually broken up with lengthy non-golf divisions ultimately brings the quality of the routing into serious and justifiable question.

Once again, I'm not disputing the reasons why this is sometimes, and even often necessary.  I'm simply bemoaning that fact as well as saying that such a golf course can be good, but can never be considered a great routing by definition.  

[mike_beene]

On the subject of houses,am I the only one who gets a real estate feel out of Pebble(a walkable course I love in spite of the houses)

[Phil]

On the subject of houses,am I the only one who gets a real estate feel out of Pebble(a walkable course I love in spite of the houses)

[Phil]

Pebble has become iconic. Yes, it has some wonderful holes but taken in total, I don't think it deserves its incredibly high ranking in the esteem parade. And regarding real estate, indeed, I agree. We too often forget that Pebble was/is in actually a very high-end real estate development w/ a very excellent golf course on an unbelievable piece of land. But today's Pebble isn't the golf course I loved as a kid. It is too commercial and too overrated. Sorry to all you Pebble lovers.

[ForkaB]

Phil

How old are you?

PB has always been commercial and real estate oriented, in the 40+ years I have known "her."  As for "overrated" it hasnt moved much but sidieways within the top 3 or so since the concept of "ratings" began.  No golf course that I know has not changed over the past 40 years.

Of what or from where are you speaking?

[ChasLawler]

There seems to be a "free pass" mentality on the part of a few posters on this discussion regarding modern architects and the restrictions placed upon them by developers and environmentalists.

Has anyone ever stopped to think what some of the older, "classic" architects could have accomplished had the golf cart been in existence when they were designing courses.

[Guest]

This post is amusing....... I've played plenty of nice designs that were seemingly "unwalkable".  So, is a Cadillac a nice car if you can't drive it??

[Golf Cart Salesman]

Can someone define the term "walkable"? And I would like to know if one has to be carrying their own bag in this definition or if one can have a caddy but not a cart. Does the course get to have benches at the tees or is that considered messy? If the course does not end both nines at the clubhouse, is it allowable to have a concession stand somewhere on the course including bathrooms? Etc. Without that definition, the design for this thread is unthinkable. Thanks.

[A_Clay_Man]

This passive process of placing huge uphill walks late in the round has to be at the interest of the principle.

Here where the land is a mish mash of anything and everything you could conceive, and others you can't, taking advantage of vistas from elevated points has led to a proliferation in the use of carts.

Shivas, I would agree that ridiculous walks late in the round are not desirable, but one of the wonderful aspects of making the closers tough, not ridiculous, is IMO another way of having the course fight back while testing & challlenging both mind and body.
i.e. Here at Pinon the nines have been switched and the dramatic (one tough hill)closers are now in the middle of your round. While this upsets me on a fundamental level, seeing the old geezers walking is a common occurance where if they were switched back many might not.

[Bob_Huntley]

Houses and Pebble Beach. Now there is a peg to hang a hat on. Many years ago, there was some sort of agreement that the houses on or adjacent to the course would have a Mediterranean feel about them. During that halcyon period they added a sense of charm to the place. Also, there were fewer of them. In recent years, we have seen deep pockets come in and build gargantuan edifices to satisfy some rather large egos. What has happened on the 18th hole is upchucking in the extreme.

[A_Clay_Man]

Bob- The old geezers I was refering to are much older than you and if they aren't, they do appear so.

[Tim Weiman]

Courses where you can't walk may be a "good design", but overall, I find them less appealing. That's simply because the game is more enjoyable when you walk....at least for me.

A couple weeks ago I went to look at a green that has been abandoned because too many people considered the hole unwalkable: #5 on Ballybunion's Cashen course. This green has now been gone for about ten years and people are starting to forget it even existed. First time visitors can't even imagine a green way up the hill where RTJ put it.

A good aerobics workout it did make, but good design? Obviously not.