[Phil Benedict]

Golf is no longer a walking sport at many courses in the US and I don't get the sense that the loss is mourned by many.  I know plenty of guys who would rather be caught naked in Harold Square during Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade than be seen carrying their bag on their home course.

Yet there is a strong sentiment favoring walking on GCA.  Are GCA'ers just a more vigorous lot than the average golfer, or is there a connection between walking and appreciating the architecture?

[Ken Moum]

I'm inclined to think "traditional" golfers are more likely to get interested in architecture, at least compared to the average cart rider.

Conversely, getting interested in GCA seems to inevitably lead to learning more about the Golden Age. I don't think you can go there without becominng offended at some level with the changes wrought by modernization.

A few weeks ago one of my former regular playing partners (who went to Scotland with me) said, "I'm never going to walk again. I love golf carts."

His interest in Scotland, it turns out was mostly to be able to say he'd been there. He has less than no interest in architecture.

K

[Tim Pitner]

Yet there is a strong sentiment favoring walking on GCA.  Are GCA'ers just a more vigorous lot than the average golfer, or is there a connection between walking and appreciating the architecture?

I think there is a connection.  Players who walk are generally more interested in their surroundings and the overall experience of playing golf.  Riders are often more interested in their score, smoking cigars, drinking beer--whatever they're into.  It's hard to notice the architecture when you're zooming along on a cartpath away from the playing area. 

[Dan Kelly]

On most courses where I've taken a cart, I can't get my bearings, and can't re-create the "flow" (if any) of the course in my mind afterward.

The "journey" gets lost on courses built for carts. At least for me.

The routing becomes kind of irrelevant.

"Courses" become, instead, collections of holes.

[Melvyn Morrow]

There is no connection regards architecture if you ride - I believe you miss the the designers work, his skill, how he shaped and contoured the land. The only real experience comes at the Tee then at the Green, the rest is lost in driving and keeping to the track. A sad reflection on the skill and quality of our modern golf course architects.

That is why I would like to see the design intent described on the scorecard to try and offer an explanations plus thoughts behind the layout of the course.

Let people use the carts, but increase their Green Fees – Reduce the fees for Walkers. Get the revenue from those who want to ride all day and give encouragement to the traditional golfer (for those who care, the Walker has a zero carbon footprint compared to the cart golfer).

The fact that you walk the course allows you time to see and experience the architecture.
   

[Kalen Braley]

Geez.

And all this time, I thought I preferred to walk out of being a cheap bastage!! 

I think some courses it is true that its harder to get a lay of the land when your zooming in the cart.  But when you play it multiple times you can get the hang of it.  And in terms of modern courses, there are some that just wouldn exist if it weren't for carts because they are completely unwalkable.  Some may say they should have never been built in the first place...and perhaps they are right.  But then again if they weren't built where would one play?

[TEPaul]

Phil:

I'm not more vigorous than the next guy. I carry my bag certainly when I'm alone because I'm what Charles Barkley calls "fruuugal" and most others call cheap---ie I hate spending muuhney!

[Evan Fleisher]

Yet there is a strong sentiment favoring walking on GCA.  Are GCA'ers just a more vigorous lot than the average golfer, or is there a connection between walking and appreciating the architecture?

I think there is a connection.  Players who walk are generally more interested in their surroundings and the overall experience of playing golf.  Riders are often more interested in their score, smoking cigars, drinking beer--whatever they're into.  It's hard to notice the architecture when you're zooming along on a cartpath away from the playing area. 

Well said Tim!

I absolutely believe that there is a greater connection to "the ground" when you al versus ride.  You have the opportunity to "smell the roses", look BACK down the fairway (how many time do you do that in a cart?), plan your next shot, and take in all the nuances the course has to offer under foot.

Pretty hard to do that sitting on a cushion in a fast moving vehicle on a paved road, don't you think?

[RJ_Daley]

I swear, everytime I get into a cart where required, and after I hit my tee ball on the first tee, as we commence to enter the course, I usually sit on the passenger side and hear the Disneyworld song in my head, "it's a small world, don't you know, it's a small world..da da dee..." Cripes, I can't get it out of my head, it distracts me and I loose focus on the game before I even get started... that and shiney spoons always get me...

[Andy Troeger]

I'm admittedly not as ardent of a walker as the folks who have already posted. I'd rather walk because as bad as I've been playing most of the time lately at least that way I get some exercise and the opportunity to vent frustration on the way to my next shot!

In terms of caring about architecture I don't see much connection personally. I'm just as capable of looking around and observing features from a cart as I am walking. The only time that's not the case is on courses where the cart path meanders around 30 yards from the fairways in the middle of the desert or some other random place where you can't see anything (Stone Canyon Club near Tucson rings a bell). At courses where you can ride the fairways there's really no practical difference.

I do believe there's a connection between golfers that care about architecture liking to walk though. I don't think it works the other way around (just because one walks doesn't mean they care a lick about architecture). As others have mentioned this would seem to come back to the origins of the game and viewing some of the classic courses where walking is encouraged or even required. Given the choice I know I'd rather walk, but lets not get too carried away with this part about not being able to experience architecture from a cart.

[Jim Adkisson]

Carts should be for ADA use only...too many fat, sassy, cigar chompers taking up space on the courses! 

While at Bethpage Black on Thursday, I played with a gentleman from Michigan and 2 guys from Toronto...one of the beauties of walking is the change of conversation while strolling the fairways...in the cart you tend to only speak to the guy sitting next to you...

I agree that walking (hopefully down the center of the fairway) you get a far better sense of what the architect was trying to accomplish on each hole vs. zooming around the fringe of the course on the path.

And don't get me started on having carts ON the grass, destroying the quality of the playing surface!

At 47, I hopefully have some 30 more years of walking before I have to concede to a cart.

[Cory Brown]

I think the cart riding golfer appreciates the architecture of the course about as much as a bowler appreciates the architecture of the bowling lane.  It is after all a similar experience; play your shot, sit down, drink, repeat.

[Peter Pallotta]

Phil -

Some good posts already. I'd just add that Time and Attention are essential for appreciating anything at all: a painting, your wife and children, and yes, even golf course architecture. It seems to me that walking a golf course brings those two elements together more easily and naturally.

Peter

[A.G._Crockett]

Think of it this way:

When do you get the better appreciation of the architecture and landscaping of the homes in a neighborhood?  When you are out for a walk, or when you are driving down the street?

When do you get the greatest appreciation of subtle changes in slope?  When you are walking that slope, or when you are driving?

[Jeff_Brauer]

With carts, you get to your bad shots sooner, and while moving, you are tending to still be thinking about the absolute crappy state of your golf game, rather than other things you might be appreciating.

[tlavin]

I think it's akin to driving your car through an architecturally significant urban neighborhood versus strolling along on the sidewalks with your dog.  Slowing down the pace allows much more absorption of information and you can gradually process the information in a way that you can retain it.  Surely you can absorb information about a course's architecture while riding on a cart and playing the course, but it is clearly inferior to walking and playing.

[Dan Herrmann]

I'll use music albums as a metaphor.

Before 1995 or so, artists and producers spent a lot of time sequencing songs on an album.  The idea was to provide a musical journey from one song to another.  The placement of a song was critically important to the album, which was meant to be taken as a singular piece of art.

But the shuffle function on CD players and iPod type devices made sequencing a waste of time.  Listeners no longer listened to an album, they just used their iPod to randomly surf through songs.

That's what carts have done to GCA - they've made sequencing and flow moot.  I took a friend out to my place but insisted that we walk (he runs 5 miles a day, but always takes a cart).  He had played the course in a cart before during an outing.

About the 5th hole he says, "I'm glad we're walking.  I never knew what a cool golf course this is."

A little story, but it reveals big truths.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Somewhat related article, with Trevor Immelman blasting reporters for not getting off their duff to walk the course in their reporting......


http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2008/06/11/trevor_immelman_jabs_golf_writers_who_ne

Funny thing about technology changing music listening - overall, you would think it would lead to smaller CD's, since no one is going to buy an download of a bad song.  Maybe bands should just record a dozen songs, and cut the last 2-4 out before issuing the CD?  And golf courses ought to build 18, but then cut out the most ho hum 2 holes......

As to sequence and flow, I can recall trying very hard to leave a thicket behind a green on one course.  We cleared out just enough to get the cart path through, but I wanted the feeling of going through the woods and popping out on the next tee. The super had the thicket cut in the name of air movement, which I understood, but it was cut even wider to "open up the area" by the construction manager, which dissapointed me, since I had explained the concept to him.  Of course, this is a guy who I got so mad at for messing with my artwork that I bought him tickets to the local art museum so he could freshen up his artistic sense!

For the most part, I think of sequence and flow as something like Cypress Point, where the course meanders from meadow to woods to dunes to ocean with a few intermediate stops in between.  Competitive golfers are more likely to think of flow in terms of length and difficulty of holes. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()