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

[THuckaby2]

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.

Tim - I believe that's a given for nearly every participant in this discussion group.  We ride when we have to.  Some just let that bother them more than others.

TH

[Tough Guy Walker]

I cannot believe they changed a routing to reduce late round uphill climbs. What kind of golfers are we if we can't push our bodies to the limit? Why does golf have to be an "enjoyable walk" and not a test of one's mental and physical abilities. If you clamor for walking but are then afraid to walk, don't blame the architect! You can't cry out for walking as a part of the game and then restrict the architect to only those tiny little treks between tees and greens that satisfy your level of endurance. Use those long walks to redefine your game, to gather up some inspiration, to lose some weight. If you don't really want to hoof it then fine, take a cart. Otherwise, keep your spikes tightened down, your momentum moving forward and your toes to the grindstone.

Now get out there and walk like you mean it!

[Tim Weiman]

Tough Guy Walker:

I've met plenty of 65 year olds that enjoy walking a golf course, but I haven't met very many interested in "pushing their bodies to the limited".

Golf doesn't have to be an "enjoyable walk", but over time most people believe this makes sense. Thus, we praise those architects who produce such creations.

No need to worry. The industry is loaded with cart ball courses - if that is your preference - and, on the other end, you can always find courses that provide a good workout by simply walking them.

But, those courses that are pleasurable to walk will probably be held in higher esteem.

P.S. If you are looking for a "workout" in Ohio, check out the Salt Fork State Park golf course. 36 holes a day at that baby will get your heart rate up, that for sure.

[Tough Guy Walker]

Tim,

Thanks for the heads-up on that course.

Regarding golf courses that "get it" here is how I hold courses in terms of higher esteem from best to worst:

1. Tough courses to walk. Lots of hills and long walks in the heat, either carrying or pulling your clubs.
2. Tough courses to walk without all the hills. Still like the heat, but that is not critical for this group.
3. Group #1 with caddies, though caddies are a cop out on the walkability scale. But whatever. They have to go in here somewhere.
4. Group #2 with caddies.
5. Easy, enjoyable walks between tees and greens.
6. Easy, enjoyable walks between tees and greens with a caddy. Let's call this caddy-ball.
6a. Whatever course in any of these groups if played in a cart. Let's call this cart-ball.

It is all golf, so it is all good. I repeat, it is ALL GOOD. But if you are going to talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk.

Now go out there and walk like you mean it!

[Tim Weiman]

Tough Guy Walker:

Well, nobody can accuse you of not having your own ideas about what makes a golf course good.

Now that we understand what makes you tick, can you share with us your three favorite courses, i.e., those that fit into category #1?

[Tough Guy Walker]

Tim,

I watched the Lord of the Rings with my kids the other day. I kept seeing golf holes everywhere they went as they traveled around fussing over that ring. Something like that would be my ideal. But like I said, it is all good.

Now get out there and walk like you mean it!

[Forrest Richardson]

Mike --

- - -

You said, "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.

Well, that seems sortg of general, doesn't it? I suppose you are correct if we assume there is no redeeming value to the elements you list. However, I designed a course for a residential development and had your same opinion. Until one day I played there and was just about to comment to the couple I was paired with about the unsightly homes and back-yards...when the lady got a huge smile on her face and said, very proudly, "That's our home over there, we're so happy with it...and what a beautiful view we have." Now, here is the golf architect about to apologize when all of a sudden I get another viewpoint. "Generally" I agree with you...but space can be broken many ways -- it is not always best left unbroken.

- - -

And, you also said, "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."

Routing is not always about how "well" the entire property is used. It is also about how poorly it may be used, including unpredictions that are thrown at the solution. What is good to you may be poor to me. What is unpredictible to you may be usualy to me. But, again, I suppose your general comment can be accepted...but, again, it's just a genarality.

- - -

Consider this: The town of St. Andrews is most assuridly a bother to the golf. But it is a bother that has become an attraction. Much like the rude waitress at a small town diner, as a visitor we love this unique juxtaposed "charm".