News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Not walkable = Bad routing?
« on: July 31, 2004, 11:07:11 AM »
I don't like cart ball and much prefer walking but I'm not so sure a course that is not walkable is automatically a bad routing (for the given property).  Unfortunately, very few times do golfers have any idea what caused the holes to be laid out in the manner they are.  I think that is worth keeping that in mind before dissing a course's routing because it is not walkable.   The Plantation Course is just one example.  Is that a bad routing?  

McCloskey

Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2004, 11:13:55 AM »
MF

I think an important question to ask is "is it better to build a hole with close green/tee connections regardless of the quality of the hole, or is it better to build the best golf holes even if the connections are not close/good.   All just for the sake of walking less.
Some sites are just so demanding that if close connections is the most important priority, the resulting golf holes are just ridiculous.
I vote for the best golf holes even if the walk is further than we all would like.   All sites are not created equal.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2004, 01:02:30 PM »
I agree with the comments.  I'm just always surprised how many guys immediately discount a routing "just because it is not walkable".  No question the architect has to live with what gets built because his name is on it.  But there are times that they were forced to do what they did for reasons outside their control.  Other times, its just how the routing came out on their CAD system and they didn't bother to change it ;)

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2004, 01:16:24 PM »
I can think of a dozen courses that are not walkable because of extreme terrain.  Trying to maximize the experience is a negative if they give up on walking but its not the end of the world, especially resort type golf.

DMoriarty

Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2004, 01:30:41 PM »
It's a slippery slope.  

The 'build the best hole' cart-balling-vision-quest has bastardized the more subtle and demanding 'find the best course' walkabout.  And golf architecture is further perverted.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2004, 01:33:59 PM by DMoriarty »

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2004, 03:17:59 PM »
Mark_Fine writes:
I'm not so sure a course that is not walkable is automatically a bad routing (for the given property).

Of course it is. What is routing, but the fitting together of the holes. If they are spread all over hell and back then was the course really routed, or was just the best 18 spots for golf holes chosen? What does it mean to route a course when you only need to lay tons of cart path between holes?

Unfortunately, very few times do golfers have any idea what caused the holes to be laid out in the manner they are.  I think that is worth keeping that in mind before dissing a course's routing because it is not walkable.

Why should I give a damn about the problems of the architect? If the course is crap I don’t need to make the slightest concession for why it is crap. I can diss it for it’s crappiness all I want and feel fine about myself.

The Plantation Course is just one example.  Is that a bad routing?

Yep.

Not every property in the world should be eligible for a golf course.

Dan King
Quote
"Often it is necessary to get from one section to another over ground which is not suited to easy construction, but that troublesome hole must be made to stand right up with the others. If it has nothing about it that might make it respectable, it has to have quality knocked into it until it can hold its head up in polite society."
 --A.W. Tillinghast

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2004, 03:30:13 PM »
Dan,
Nice quote from Tillinghast.  Problem with it is that it can cost millions of dollars at times "to knock it into shape" and guess who ends of paying for it?  Sometimes the best thing to do is save the cash and re-route the course.  

Your definition of a routing is a little light but then again most golfers don't have any idea what it is.  

Of course you can diss a course for what ever reason you like, why be different than anyone else.  However, it's those educated complaints that are the most interesting to listen to and potentially learn from.  

But what do I know, I think the Plantation course is outstanding (routing and all).
Mark

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2004, 03:42:49 PM »
Mark_Fine writes:
Problem with it is that it can cost millions of dollars at times "to knock it into shape" and guess who ends of paying for it? Sometimes the best thing to do is save the cash and re-route the course.

Then maybe it isn’t a good spot for a golf course. I know it’s an old-fashion idea, but at one time not every piece of land a developer wanted to turn into a golf course merited the effort.

Your definition of a routing is a little light but then again most golfers don't have any idea what it is.

Oh Fine one please enlighten me.

However, it's those educated complaints that are the most interesting to listen to and potentially learn from.

I feel so deeply wounded.

But what do I know, I think the Plantation course is outstanding (routing and all).

Glad you clarified. Since you are impressed by Plantation’s routing I only need to consider the source of the insults and I no longer feel deeply wounded.

Dan King
Quote
Excessive golfing dwarfs the intellect. Nor is this to be wondered at when we consider that the more fatuously vacant the mind is, the better for play. It has been observed that absolute idiots play the steadiest.
  --Sir Walter Simpson  (The Art of Golf)

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2004, 03:59:12 PM »
Dan,
The more I think about it, you are correct - you should not build a golf course if it is not walkable.  And if you can't build a great one, don't even bother trying to make it walkable and wasting your time.  
I've just been educated, thanks.
Mark

« Last Edit: July 31, 2004, 04:20:53 PM by Mark_Fine »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2004, 04:24:37 PM »
The more I think about it, I wish I had known a few weeks ago about not building a golf course if you can't make it walkable.  I played French Creek with Gil Hanse and I could have told him he wasted his time designing the course.  Bill you could have told Kelly the same thing!  
« Last Edit: July 31, 2004, 04:25:20 PM by Mark_Fine »

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2004, 04:27:31 PM »
Those of you who hate courses that are not walkable, shouldn't play them.

You guys probably don't like skyscrapers because they have elevators and prefer stairs.

I enjoy walkable golf courses as much as the next guy but...

The golf cart has allowed architects to build wonderful, creative, and sometimes brilliant courses that the rest of us can enjoy.
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2004, 04:39:46 PM »
Cary,
You are making sense.  Please stop!
Mark

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2004, 04:42:31 PM »
Mark_Fine writes:
The more I think about it, you are correct - you should not build a golf course if it is not walkable.

Glad I could help.

And if you can't build a great one, don't even bother trying to make it walkable and wasting your time.  
I've just been educated, thanks.


Huh?  Looks like you are being educated by someone other than me.

cary lichtenstein writes:
Those of you who hate courses that are not walkable, shouldn't play them.

I don’t.

But the subject was routing. Please explain how you can have a good routing on a cart-ball track. What’s the point? Why not just take a big piece of land and find the best 18 holes. Why bother with routing?

The golf cart has allowed architects to build wonderful, creative, and sometimes brilliant courses that the rest of us can enjoy.

No they have not. It’s allowed them to build cart-ball tracks. They can hardly be called golf courses.

Dan King
Quote
Maybe it's time to propose that golfers refuse to play courses where they are forced to ride. Now this idea has absolutely no chance of gaining ground because a generation of golfers is being raised who think that walking is the oddity. They'll read in some old golf magazine that former USGA president Sandy Tatum  once called golf by cart "cart-ball." And they will think, "who was that old fogy anyway?"
 --Lorne Rubenstein

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2004, 05:06:51 PM »
Dan:

Some of the hillier, more severe properties just can't be routed to both allow walking and take advantage of what can be the best holes.

If a property highest and best use as a golf course, is 18 great holes that can only be accessed by a golf cart, then I am all for it.

But, each to their own. I'd don't expect to change anyone's mind, but just to appreciate there are more ways to cut a cake.
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

DMoriarty

Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2004, 06:13:31 PM »
Dan,
Nice quote from Tillinghast.  Problem with it is that it can cost millions of dollars at times "to knock it into shape" and guess who ends of paying for it?  Sometimes the best thing to do is save the cash and re-route the course.  

Why do I think that this generally does not hold true?   Which generally cost more to build, walking courses or cart ball courses?

Quote
Your definition of a routing is a little light but then again most golfers don't have any idea what it is.  

Of course you can diss a course for what ever reason you like, why be different than anyone else.  However, it's those educated complaints that are the most interesting to listen to and potentially learn from.

This is what I love about GCA . . . start a thread, then condescend and insult those who disagree with you . . . What exactly were you looking for here, some pats on the back?   As for the content, I wonder of those who routed (route) courses as Dan described didnt "have any idea" either.

Quote
But what do I know, I think the Plantation course is outstanding (routing and all).

Plantation used to be one of my favorite courses.   I was there last fall, and I've got to admit I was extremely disappointed with the unwalkability.  Without a doubt is greatly lessens the experience.  Is it a good routing?  Only relative to the difficult piece of land.    In my book it just cannot compare as a golfing experience to the great acheivements on better land.  

Cary,

Unfortunately, it is not as easy as 'to each his own.'   With a landscape of cart ball courses where should we walkers play?    Architects think cart ball courses are just as good, and developers love to try to make money off carts.  It ceases to be a matter of choice when the golfer's laziness and the developer's greediness deprives the real golfer's options.  

Went to see a new course near LA . . . asked the "management consultant" if the course was walkable.  "Definitely it was . . . or would have been . . . except that carts were required."
« Last Edit: July 31, 2004, 06:35:14 PM by DMoriarty »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2004, 07:40:03 PM »
Dmoriarty,
Dan said "What is routing but fitting together of the holes".  I happen to think routing is a little more than that.  Heck some guy I know wrote a 500 page book on the subject.  

Dan said "Why should I give a damn about the problems of the architect?  If the course is crap I don’t need to make the slightest concession for why it is crap.  I can diss it for it’s crappiness all I want and feel fine about myself."  If you think that is a good response fine.  It basically confirms my point that some people feel if the course is not walkable it is a bad routing regardless of what the architect did with the property and resources he had at hand.  

Are you suggesting that C&C didn't have a clue what a good routing was when they built the Plantation Course?  Same goes for Gil Hanse at French Creek and Kelly Moran at Morgan Hill.   If they did have a clue then why did they build what they built?
« Last Edit: July 31, 2004, 07:49:47 PM by Mark_Fine »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2004, 08:24:12 PM »
By the way - truce guys!  I would like to continue the discussion but I will be out of Internet range for a few days.  Cary, please take over from here  ;D
Take care,
Mark

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2004, 09:09:55 PM »
Mark Fine writes:
Dan said "Why should I give a damn about the problems of the architect?  If the course is crap I don’t need to make the slightest concession for why it is crap.  I can diss it for it’s crappiness all I want and feel fine about myself."

I was responding to your comment:
Unfortunately, very few times do golfers have any idea what caused the holes to be laid out in the manner they are.  I think that is worth keeping that in mind before dissing a course's routing because it is not walkable.

When judging a course I don’t see any reason why I have to care about the difficulty the architect or developer had to go through. All I care about is the final product.

If I eat a crappy meal in a restaurant why would I need to care if the chef isn’t able to get fresh produce or some of his kitchen staff quit that morning. The only concern is if the result is good not what kind of effort the staff went through to deliver the crappy meal.

If you think that is a good response fine.  It basically confirms my point that some people feel if the course is not walkable it is a bad routing regardless of what the architect did with the property and resources he had at hand.

Of course it is a bad routing. I can’t walk it can I?

There are certain requirements to building a golf course. I think holes are very important. You can build a nice place for playing golf shots and finish with a bunch of clown mouths but you aren’t going to get me to compare it to people who build golf courses. I don’t care how tough it was for them to punch holes in the earth -- it is still lacking.

There is no reason someone can’t build a place to play golf that has no grass. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be built I’m just saying when someone asks me what I think I’m going to say it doesn’t measure up because it lacks grass. I don’t give a damn how-lip smacking good each individual hole is, if there is no grass then I think that deserves pointing out.

Tell me all the horror stories they had trying to grow real grass and I still won’t care. Tell me all about how they lacked resources, couldn’t afford grass seed or whatever. If there is no grass it ain’t a golf course.

Dan King
Quote
Oh golf is for smellin' heather and cut grass and walkin fast across the countryside and feelin' the wind and watchin' the sun go down and seein' yer friends hit good shots and hittin' some yerself. It's love and feelin' the splendor o' the good world.
 --Agatha McNaughton (Golf in the Kingdom)

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2004, 10:20:11 PM »
Well, there are probably a lot of really great walkable courses that would be better if they were spread out to 2x or 4x the land with occasional 1/3 mile slogs between holes over the less desireable land.

I don't think its unreasonable to suggest that you'd have a better 18 holes making up TOC if it was designed as a cart ball course and thus originally stretched twice as far as it now does.  Heck, maybe the best TOC would play way afield, then have long drives to get back to the current 11th, 12th, 14th, 16th and the finisher, 17.  Then you drive from the Road hole 400 yards back to the clubhouse.

TOC wouldn't be what it is if you didn't walk it, and definitely wouldn't be what it is if you COULDN'T walk it, even if some of the individual holes were improved by increasing the amount of land the holes could have been "found" upon.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Andy Hodson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2004, 01:24:19 PM »
Wow, Dan
The Plantation course is bad routing? Because its not walkable?

Wait, it is walkable. Long walks perhaps, but then, isn't that what golf is, or should be? One long walk, with intermittent stops to hit the ball?

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2004, 02:55:00 PM »
If you want to see a travesty of cart-based routing, look no further than Rees Jones's Tattersall in West Chester, PA.  This is the most unwalkable course I've ever come across.

It's about a 3/4 mile "walk" back to the clubhouse from the 18th green.  The 10th hole requires a cart drive from the green back to the tee and then back to the green again.  I wonder how many golfers have been hit driving into tee shots?

And the elevation changes aren't well accomplished, IMHO.  This is Chester County, PA after all - not the Rockies!

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2004, 04:52:05 PM »
   Another newish Philly area course that's not walkable is Hurdzan and Fry's Fieldstone.  It's so unwalkable that, at a walking-only major tournament a few years ago, carts were provided for trips between some greens and tees.  And it's an upscale private club in an area where caddies are the norm.  I think an unwalkable course is more forgiveable at a daily fee course (Tattersoll), where it's pretty much all cart play anyway.

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2004, 12:04:00 AM »
Andy Hodson writes:
Wow, Dan
The Plantation course is bad routing?


Yep.

Because its not walkable?

Exactly.

Wait, it is walkable. Long walks perhaps

The PGA Tour® doesn't even try to walk it. They shuttle players between some holes and even up one or two of the fairways. This came up when the PGA Tour® was fighting Casey Martin in court.

but then, isn't that what golf is, or should be? One long walk, with intermittent stops to hit the ball?

There's a big difference between walking between shots on a hole and forced marches between holes. Even some of those, such as the hike up the hill at Cruden Bay, doesn't detract from the round. But when they are too many with minimal reward after the hike they really ruin the flow of the round and they become unwalkable.

Bill Schulz writes:
In my opinion, this magical aura can only be achieved on walkable layouts.

Amen brother.

Dan King
Quote
Ye see, tha' man got to be famous heer for his walkin'. Twas said tha' if ye played along wi' him for very long ye'd get the spirit o' it yersel' and learn to enjoy each and every step. 'Twas said tha' he sometimes forgot his shots, the walkin' got to be so good. Had to be reminded by his caddie to hit the ball.
 --Shivas Irons (Golf in the Kingdom)

DMoriarty

Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2004, 01:47:53 AM »
Mark Fine,  I think I understood Dan's points and your responses the first time around.  Even with your further explanations, I am still with Dan on this one, except perhaps for the matter of degree.  

It doesnt surprise me that some guy wrote a big book on routing.  On the contrary, it reinforces by belief that it is actually many of the contemporary designers who don't know much about routing.  

Are you suggesting that C&C didn't have a clue what a good routing was when they built the Plantation Course?  

I never came close to suggesting that CC "didnt have a clue" when they routed Plantation.  Not even close.  
___________________

I think we have a fundamental difference in perspective here . . .  I think Dan and I evaluate golf courses from the point of view of golfers looking for an authentic golfing experience.   Absurd treks between holes and manditory/ necessary carts severely diminish that experience.  (Dan would likely take this further and say carts totally ruin the experience.)

I can appreciate the brilliance of what CC did on Maui.  But the tough routing and carts substantially detract from the golfing experience.  Kapalua Plantation may be Cart Ball at its best, but Cart Ball isn't half the game as Golf.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2004, 01:49:13 AM by DMoriarty »

ForkaB

Re:Not walkable = Bad routing?
« Reply #24 on: August 02, 2004, 03:45:24 AM »
I can see the future, and it is......Limo Golf!

Before teeing off at Serendipity Hills, you are introduced to your personal caddy and your limo driver.  The tee is elevated, and the hole turns seamlessly with the land, gently to the right.  The caddy hands you your driver, you manage to play the required power fade to position A, and you two walk down the exquisitely and tastefully designed golf hole with only the birds, your fellow competitors and their caddies for company.  The hole is a blatant tribute to the 1st at Shinnecock, but at 472, more in tune with the modern game.

After a satisfying par, you step back into the strectch limo, whilst your caddy and the clubs go into a modified "rumble seat" in the back.  You drive for 3-5 minutes on the peaceful roads of Serendipity Estates, a gated community with 2-acre zoning, where every property looks like Beaver Cleaver's house on designer steroids.  You sip champagne and watch the videos of your shots on the last hole.

A mile or two later, you turn down a secluded lane and arrive at the 2nd tee.  Your caddy jumps out with your bag and hands you your 3-iron.  It is a reverse Redan that even CB McDonald would be proud of that fits the lie of the land like a glove.  You wait for the lone deer to cross the hitting zone before playing, and then hit a solid shot that unforturnately does not cut and leaves you with an awkward chip from the left side up onto the green and then down the hill.  Despite a good chip and a solidly struck 12-foot putt, you get 4.  Before you get back into the limo, your caddy hands you the video clip from the last hole.  "Pro," he says.  "I think you're not getting the proper weight shift on those long irons.  Try to hit through them a bit more."

You get in the limo, load the video, add a bit of peach schnapps to your Cristal and try to work out the minor flaws in your swing.  Fortunately, the drive between #2 and #3 at SH is a long one, as it travels through the "Billionaries Row" subdivision.  All you can see are trees and iron gates and the occasional domestic servant driving by in their Lexus on the way to work.  You need a special permit to drive or walk or bicycle on these roads, but fortunately the security tags on your limo are up to date and you are waved through every 400 meters or so by the electronic guards.

Arriving on the 3rd tee, you can see why VGCA (Virtual Golf Club Atlas) praised this as "One of the finest and most original golf holes ever "found" by enhanced GPS."  It is the site of an old Native American burial ground which the developer traded for some flatland 20 miles away (discretely hidden behind the 15th of SH) where the Sitting Bulls' Revenge Casino complex built and owned by the Fugawee tribe now resides.  The hole is a 747 yard hole called "Holy Jumbo!"  It twists and turns with the land and the burial mounds and Cooreshaw's Creek, around and then up Hacker's HIll to a green site which the Fugawees until recently considered to be the most sacred land on earth.  Sernedipity Hills respects this history by REQUIRING a lift, clean and drop under Rule 25 for any ball interfered with by an exposed bone or other artefact.  While it is said that Michelle Wie once reached this green in 2, most mortals must rely on a solid 300 yard lay up left of the first burial mound.  A full throttle 300 yard 3 wood uphill to the "Plateau of the Would Be Gods" and then a blind uphill 54.7 degree wedge to the table top green.  You are happy with your 6.

From the green, 1000 feet above the level of the first tee, you can see almost all of the golf course.  All that is not immediately visible are holes 7 and 8, which lie behind Mount Mazuma to the east which, it is said, were found by the architect only through the serendipty of a helicopter guidance malfunction during the routing process.  Hence the name of the development and the course...............

I'm with you, Dano, all the way.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back