Jim Engh Shoots Straight

[Tim Pitner]

I suppose I've tipped my hand by labeling myself a militant walker, but I believe creating walking-oriented courses is at the heart of whatever renaissance is going on in golf course architecture these days.  For all the brilliance of the architectural features created or incorporated by Mr. Doak and other like-minded architects, their greatest contribution to the game may be in building courses that encourage walking.  

Golf should be a sport, not a car ride.  Cart-ball destroys the continuity and flow of a round.  I live in Colorado where many mountain courses effectively can't be walked.  Some of these courses are very enjoyable, but it doesn't feel quite like golf.  It's amusement park golf and I fear Mr. Engh may be perpetuating that.  Too often these courses are as Mike Cirba suggested--drive up a hill, hit from an elevated tee and drive to the next hole for more of the same.  It's for this reason that I prefer the less scenic, but more walkable courses in the Denver area.  

I realize not every property lends itself well to a walking course (but, as suggested, perhaps these sites should not be made into golf courses), but there's too much laziness--lazy golfers and perhaps "lazy" architects.  With some effort, golf can be more of a walking game in the U.S.  Who's with me?  No nukes!  Save the whales!  Stick it to the Man!  

[Dave Bourgeois]

I'm sure most here agree that walking is the way to go.  I just think that it depends on what the client wants and who will be the majority of the customers as to how the design is completed.  As sad as it is we are the minority.

It makes me nuts when I'm forced to pay for a cart when the course was routed for, and is perfect for walking.  However, the priority for me in evaluation is still the architecture.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I will say that I love to walk but Engh's Blackrock would require an expedition!  Just the immigration problems of getting the sherpas and elephants here would be difficult!  

While Blackrock is nearly unwalkable it is spectacular to look at.  The routing is dynamic but I am concerned with his treatment of the green surrounds.  They border on claustrophobic.  Many of the greens are enclosed by steep hillsides where chipping could cause vertigo, always downhill.  

Is this typical of his other courses or is Blackrock unique?

[Craig Sweet]

The architechs from the golden age would have designed courses with golf carts in mind too. So I wouldn't get all tweeked about Engh.

[Matt_Ward]

What's so amusing and downright laughable is that so few people have played a representative sampling of Jim Engh's golf designs but seem able -- and often times dogmatic -- to proclaim what he's failed to with what he has created.

Hello guys -- wake up please !!!

How bout a bit of due diligence besides the weighing in with just one personal observation and left field cheap seats opinions?

I have played roughly a dozen of Engh's designs and minus a mere handful the rest can be walked. I am impressed by a good number of the courses he has designed -- from the private exclusive side to those available to the public. His recent work at Pradera and Lakota Canyon are two wonderful layouts and both can be walked if one opted to do so.

The idea that golf is somehow caving in and will only produce just cartball golf courses is silly. The desire to balance ride-only players and those who prefer to walk seems to be where things are heading. The so-called exclusive private courses are even seeing fit to have only walking courses which is just fine.

Jim Engh has had some very difficult sites to handle. In those cases -- Black Rock and Sanctuary -- come quickly to mind --it's imperative that players do ride. Does that undercut the architecture? I guess that depends upon one's particular view.

I have said this over and over again -- for those who's ears are somewhat open -- that if the cart ride becomes the dominant ingredient to playing the course than it does take away from the overall time spent there. Does that then mean the golf course should be trashed as something less than pure and saintly? I don't think so -- I would just place it in some form of context and go from there.

I make it a point to assess not only the individual holes but the actual flow between them and to see if the pacing / routing is indeed at a complex level. Jim Engh understands that and as any good architect and among his best designs you get a high level of fun and anticipation to play it again and again.

At the end of the day -- the fun meter is what keeps players interested and as I said before -- a number of his designs have done that very well.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Good stuff.  Note I personally made no comments on Engh's work or the courses he's done, having never been to any.  My queries were about his "screw walkers, 90% of people ride, I'm just gonna design for them" take.

Is that really something we should get behind?

Because well... I'd agree with you that there certainly is a place for cartball.  I am FAR from a militant walker.  And I too believe that certain sites make for very entertaining golf, and would be just plain stupid to walk.  I'd rather have a golf course there and just go ahead and ride than have no course at all.  Obviously many here differ from this view.

So... I think your take is solid, in that when the ride overwhelms the golf, that needs to be put into context at the very least.  All very well and good.

BUT... what I remain having a very hard time with is giving too much credit/praise/celebration to Engh.  Because as much as I do believe these courses are better than nothing, well... WALKABLE, AFFORDABLE courses are really what we ought to be celebrating the most, as they are the best for the game.

Does this make any sense?  I guess what I am trying to say is I'm sure I'd enjoy the golf at all of these Engh courses discussed.  I'm sure lots of golfers do.  Given the state of the game though, I'm just not sure I want to sing his praises to the heavens, nor do I feel all that great that his courses tend to get ranked so highly by the magazines.

Or is it just a lost cause, lots of room in the golf world, live and let live kinda thing?

I am struggling with this.

TH

[Tim Pitner]

I am, more or less, in agreement with Mr. Huckaby.  I have played an Engh course (Matt, can we agree on the deficiencies of Red Hawk Ridge--ridiculously short par 5s, over-reliance on elevated tees, perhaps not enough land to work with?), but I haven't played enough to judge his work as a whole.  I haven't played them, but virtually everyone praises Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon; reactions to Fossil Trace vary--it doesn't look like my cup of tea, too gimmicky.

I'm not really criticizing Engh's work, more his attitude.  I value the natural aspects of golf, i.e., the use of natural features, the time spent walking in a relatively pristine, natural environment.  I don't think I'm alone in this.  For Engh to say (apparently) that he pays no attention to routing a course so that it can be walked seems like an abdication of some of his responsibilities as an architect.  Not everyone feels this way, obviously, but it's a personal affront to me.

Where I disagree with Mr. Huckaby is when he says that a cart-ball course is better than no course at all.  We have enough golf courses in this country and courses, especially cement-ridden ones, can spoil the natural environment (the Rocky Mountains, for example, are pretty nice in themselves).  What we need is better, more inspired courses, particularly ones that are publicly accessible.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim:

Well, my perspective comes from one of the highest golfer to course per capita ratios in the US (SF Bay Area), so for me, every new course is a fine addition.  Thus even a cartball nightmare course I absolutely hate right near me (The Ranch at Silver Creek) is fine by me because it gives SOME people somewhere to play, and thus the tee-time pressure is reduced at least a little.

But I admit our situation here is unique.

So of course I wouldn't want to take that too far.  What we need of course are more affordable walkables, less expensive cart-balls.  So if a site is amenable to walking... or if two sites are being looked at, one works for walking, one is cartball - well then you know where I'd want the course to be built.

In any case, while you make a good point that golf courses can spoil some otherwise nice environments, well... that sure as hell isn't happening in the SF Bay Area, nor is it likely to any time soon.  And selfishly I am sick and tired of the tee-time battle, so I want more courses!

But I can see this working out differently elsewhere.

TH

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tom

I think new walkable courses will be left to the realm of munis, some publics, very few,if any, resorts and the non-residential privates. Even at some older clubs in the Philly area good caddie programs are hard to find and walk/carry is only an option after 2 or 3 pm in season. None,except Hidden Creek,permit the use "power caddies."

I will try to play Engh's new private in AZ- Blackstone- on my next visit and see how walkable it is. I played Lakota and Pradera in CO last summer and took a cart both times. I know Lakota would not be walkable but Pradera may be.

Steve

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom

I think new walkable courses will be left to the realm of munis, some publics, very few,if any, resorts and the non-residential privates. Even at some older clubs in the Philly area good caddie programs are hard to find and walk/carry is only an option after 2 or 3 pm in season. None,except Hidden Creek,permit the use "power caddies."

Steve - that does seem to be the case all over, and that does seem to be how this will all play out.

So the question again becomes this:  should we just consider it a done deal and go with the flow?  Or is it worth trying to fight this fight and devote more praise/publicity/etc. to the affordable walkables?

TH

[Tim Pitner]

Tom, I can appreciate your perspective.  Mine is colored by my location as well.  In Colorado, you have a lot of people in their 20s and 30s who regard golf as an old man's game.  They want to enjoy the fresh air, get some exercise and spend some time away from civilization.  I think these people would be more drawn to golf if it offered those things.  Cart-ball does not.  As the suburbs and exurbs grow and we lose open space, we need fewer paved areas, not more.  

We don't have a huge problem with tee times.  In the 10 years that I've lived here, it's never been easier to get a tee time than right now.  If only Ballyneal were public and closer to Denver!  

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim - makes sense.  And you think YOU wish Ballyneal was closer?

 

[Mike_Cirba]

I was with a large group of guys at my own bachelor party, so I didn't think it would be too cool to make others walk when they were paying my way. I won't walk it next time, either, because there won't be a next time. Hopefully.

George,

What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.  

[cary lichtenstein]

 author=Tim Pitner link

"I'm not really criticizing Engh's work, more his attitude."

Tim:

I think if you knew Jim Engh, you would not critize his "attitude"

One of the things that Jim has done, is make sites that really are not well suited to golf, into really wonderful courses, not too different from Fazio with Shadow Creek and Dye with Whistling Straits.

We should be celebrating the work of those 3 breakthru's as opening up hitherto unuseable pieces of land into something that thousnads of us can and do enjoy.

[Tom Huckaby]

Cary:

That's a tough one.  You do make a great point that Engh has succeeded in making enjoyable courses out of sites that weren't being used for much before (I assume).  But Tim as a Coloradoan might disagree with that.

BUT... even if this is true, does it outweigh the issue I am more concerned with, that is, that I'd rather celebrate affordable walkables?

As I say it is a tough call.  And I am far far from certain on this - any opinions/guidance/points of view would be interesting to me.

TH

[Tim Pitner]

Cary, the only attitude I was criticizing was the one reflected in the statement that he does not design courses for walkers.  I'm certainly not attacking him personally.  I don't know Mr. Engh, but anyone who has an affinity for Ireland and Carne is okay in my book.

I don't quite share the same enthusiasm as you apparently have for Shadow Creek and Whistling Straits, but I'll leave that alone for now.  

[cary lichtenstein]

Tom:

If you only like affordable walkables, then you should only them those. I think there is more to celebrate out there than just one type.

If you say, my strong preference is for affordable walkables, but I can still enjoy other courses of different elks, then you will have expanded your horizons and could possibly enjoy another array of courses as I do

I don't deny the pleasure of throwing a Sunday bag over your shoulder and walking with your buddies 18 holes. I did that for 40 years, but there is a whole other world out there.

Tim:

Engh is designing 9 holes at Carne for walkers. Engh's work is site dependent.

Shadow Creek was a wonder when it was done and opened up dead flat nothing sites to the developer and golf to enjoy. That makes it special. Ditto with Whistling Straits. It is, IMO, Pete Dye's best work, for he created what only nature could create heretofore.

If I were an architect, I would nominate those 2 courses for the Hall of Fame in that architect's can point to those courses as examples of where they can push the envelope and succeed.

Engh's work at Santuary was done on a site that 4 other architects turned down as not buildable, and he is now creating for us playable golf courses in areas that nature has given us unusable masterpieces.

[Tom Huckaby]

Cary:

You're missing my point - my fault, I haven't articulated it very well.

I will play anywhere, any time, any how, anywhere.  I personally like all types of golf courses, and hell yes although slinging the bag over the shoulder is my preferred way, I do ride quite frequently.

I'm not asking about where to choose to play.  I can handle that.  I also don't think it makes a whole hell of a lot of difference.  

What I am asking is this:  which types of courses should be praised - via rankings, publicity, print, etc.?  If one is concerned with the overall good of the game, is it morally/ethically right to praise Engh's designs?  Should we be happy that his designs have achieved such high rankings, with all that entails?

This is obviously a philosophical question, and reasonable minds will differ.  But I do think the more they are praised, the more highly they are ranked, the more others are encouraged to follow... the more courses like this get built... thus the less walkable courses get built... and I can't see that as being good for the game.

But perhaps it is a done deal, as I keep asking, and this is the state of the game and how it's going to go and affordable walkables are just destined to be a small niche from here on out.  To me that's sad if true.  But if it is, well... then the best sense might be to grin and bear it and go with the flow.

I really don't know.  As I say, I am struggling with this.

TH

[Tim Pitner]

Cary, we're starting to go around and around on this, but let me try to make my point better.  It's great that Engh is designing a walking course in Carne (is there any other kind in Ireland?), but I live in the U.S., and I'd like to see more walking courses here.

I think Tom Doak made a great point when he talked about the fact that he was making an effort to ensure that his course in Montana is walkable.  This is something I think all architects should consider.  The article made it sound like Engh was saying he had no obligation to do this because "90%" of golfers take a cart anyway.  If true, I think it's regrettable because Engh is talented and I'd like to see that talent more focused on creating walkable golf courses, not just on creating golf holes.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim that is very well said and also plays into my issue here - I just can't get behind celebrating and praising an architect who plain straight out doesn't give a rat's ass about the walker, seemingly not even trying to help him out.  Now of course on some of the more difficult sites there's nothing he could do... but from his words it seems he doesn't bother to try anywhere.

This does occur all over - I've played two courses recently where things COULD have been made easier for the walker with little footbridges, paths cut out, etc. but they didn't even bother.  It is VERY annoying when you see a path that could have been taken straight to the fairway, but you have to go way the hell around some rough or hazard or something just because that's where the cartpath goes and it's the only way to get there.

Witness San Juan Oaks GC, San Juan Bautista, CA and Callippe Preserve GC, Pleasanton, CA.  Neither are horrible offenders and in each case I'm sure wetlands issues factor into things, but dammit there still are some annoying lack of attention to the walker spots.  Contrast that out here to Cinnabar Hills GC in San Jose, which is on a very hilly site and is a very strenuous walk, but which has cut-outs and paths all over the place added simply to ease the way for the walker.  That type of effort, large or small, is appreciated.

TH

[DMoriarty]

This is a interesting discussion, if only to see how many times TomH can post about an Architect whose courses he has never played.  I've only played one Engh course, Black Rock.  My comments below are limited to Black Rock.

After reading the excerpts, I cant say I like Black Rock any better, but I think I do understand it better.   It seems that many of the features I disliked at Black Rock probably fit in quite nicely with what Jim Engh apparently calls the 'the golf cart-path experience.'

For example, despite the beautiful and panoramic Idaho scenery nearly all the golf holes are sunken into troughs so that one can rarely see much outside that particular playing corridor.   And has been said above on here, the greensites are clausterphobic;  surrounding by large mounds or banks on three sides.   The property itself is convex but the course is concave.  

But now that I think about it, the tee boxes and cart paths are largely on top of the surrounding berms and banks.  From the cart paths and elevated tees, one can take in some very nice views, which just arent visible from the course itself.   The holes are quite visible from the paths, however, and I assume that this is what he means when he says that "he is sure to highlight views of the course."  

Now in my opinion a golf course should be designed for golfing and not to look good from a cart path.  To me the views that matter are those that intertwine with the actual golfing experience, as should the native landscape.  But apparently I am becoming a minority in holding onto this once common view.  

One more critique of Engh's design strategy, I wonder if it wouldnt a more effective approach if it was "the golf cart-path only experience."  If the course is built to be seen from the cart paths, then why not make sure the players dont miss a thing.


____________

Onto the walking issue.

On a plus side, I am glad to see an honest admission by Engh that he is completely excluding any consideration for walkers in his designs.   I've battled with an esteemed poster here about the walkability of Black Rock, and the Engh excerpts at Black Rock certainly put its supposed walkability in proper persective.  

On the minus side, I am surprised to see how many people have absolutely no problem with riding-only designs.   It is not a question of "to each his own,"  because the option of walking is taken away by such designs.   How can you raters heap accolades on a course which slams the door on such a core segment of the golfing world?  

[Tom Huckaby]

David:

Obviously I'm not discussing his courses, but the statements he made - and that's the intent of this topic, no?  Go back to Hendren's initial topic post.  The intent of this topic has really nothing to do with his golf courses per se.  If it did I wouldn't have uttered a word here.

In any case, the bottom line is I keep asking the same question you just did:

"How can you raters heap accolades on a course which slams the door on such a core segment of the golfing world?  

If you'll read the posts herein, you'll see it's a very troubling issue to me.  And I take it beyond ratings, but really to anyone.... writers, participants in here, hell word of mouth... If one cares about the good of the game, it just doesn't seem right to give these Engh courses too much praise, not if he has the attitude these statements convey.

TH

[Ron Farris]

My hat is off to Matt Ward for being in such good shape to be able to walk Pradera.  Getting from 15 green to 16 tee gave me a bloody nose due to the elevation change.  It reminded me of the drive to Pikes Peak.  Once I arrived I nearly passed out from lack of oxygen. From what I have seen Mr. Engh designs quality golf holes with interesting options.  

[Andy Troeger]

Tom and David,
  From what I've read of this discussion, you've hit on the core of the discussion: are walkers really that much of a "core segment" anymore. I'd like to say that it really still is, but from watching how few people walk on just about any course I've been to I have to say I'm beginning to wonder  
  Personally, I prefer to walk, but I also enjoy courses in the mountains on difficult sites. I tried to walk one of them once and I barely made it, so I understand that some of these courses can be great and still pretty well require a cart. Many of the Engh designs mentioned might fall in that category from what I'm reading.

[Tom Huckaby]

Andy:

Well this is the question I've been trying to get at for several pages now:  are things SO far gone that this "fight" is not worth having any more?  Should we really just punt, throw up our hands, and go ahead and celebrate cart-ball?

I can't believe it's gotten that bad.  The game simply must still be PRIMARILY a walking game... at least in intent.

No?

TH