[Melvyn Morrow]

In Kyle Harris recently posted topic on “If given a routing... “, I replied more tongue in cheek, with the exception for my third paragraph which reads
as follows:-

‘Perhaps all we may have learnt is how not to do this or that. Having said that has there ever been a serious discussion on here about the real impact of the No Walking Courses on golf and in particular Golf Course Architecture?’

So I would like to hear what your thoughts are regards the following questions.

a) In producing a course that is intended for carts, will the actual course
    be compromised due to the heavy duty path and its actual route?
b) On a percentage bases, how much more time, effort and cost (if any)
    would be involved in producing these types of courses. I presume due
    to the No Walking policy that the design and construction of the tracks
    must require more attention, therefore reflected in the cost. Also is there
    any consideration for rainfall and the effects the tracks may have on a 
    course when there are heavy downpours?
c) Due to usage and the numbers on courses the time to play a round will 
    slow down.  Have there been any reports of the carts coming into play 
    when congestion is at its highest i.e. those following a four ball with four
    carts stopped waiting for those 4 ball/4 carts playing the Green ahead –
    due to say lack of skill or the wayward shot have cart interfered with the
    game either by being hit or by distracting the players due to proximity   
    to the course?
d) As Designers and Architects do you see the merits of No Walking
    Course – not to be confused with mixed courses that allow the player
    the option to walk or ride. In your experience are they actually faster   
    than a walking course?

My opinion is I expect well known, and I firmly believe given the players NO Option – that he/she must not walk is the first step to seriously changing the game away from its roots and its origin. However I would like to understand the problems (if any) in the design and construction of No Walking Courses may generate. I presume that the Client would have advised that this was his intention within his original brief.

As Architects/Designers, a Commission is a Commission, so I expect that many may feel that they do not want to delve into the ‘Political Correctness’ of No Walking Courses, but I would be most interested in your opinions, as first and foremost you must be golfers and learnt the game in the traditional manner of Walking.

[Andy Troeger]

Many courses are built to accomodate carts whether or not they allow walking. Are many facilities actually BUILT with the premise that walking will never be allowed. I can see where they are built where walking won't be practical, but the decision to allow walking or not seems to be a management one that is separate normally from the building of the course itself. I'm curious to others experiences with that.

Most of the places I've played (and in reality I can only think of a few out of everywhere I've been) that don't allow walking also aren't very good. They seem to fall into the resort/daily fee places that want the extra revenue. Some of the places that used to have "no walking" policies have realized its not good for business; again though its a management policy and something that can be changed anytime.

I do tend to separate this from the mountain layouts that just aren't practical to walk. Most of them when I've asked would allow walkers if anybody wanted to (Paa-Ko Ridge for example), but you just about have to be a mountain hiker to survive the trip. It would be nearly impossible to put an easily walkable layout on that site; same with Lakota Canyon.

[Andy Troeger]

Regarding the pace of play issue, I think these courses claim that not allowing walkers speeds up the pace of play (especially on weekend mornings). I don't really see much difference, but there's a lot of factors involved. If you restrict carts to the cart paths I think it adds a good 15 minutes to the pace of a round at least.

[Sean_A]

In Kyle Harris recently posted topic on “If given a routing... “, I replied more tongue in cheek, with the exception for my third paragraph which reads
as follows:-

‘Perhaps all we may have learnt is how not to do this or that. Having said that has there ever been a serious discussion on here about the real impact of the No Walking Courses on golf and in particular Golf Course Architecture?’

So I would like to hear what your thoughts are regards the following questions.

a) In producing a course that is intended for carts, will the actual course
    be compromised due to the heavy duty path and its actual route?
b) On a percentage bases, how much more time, effort and cost (if any)
    would be involved in producing these types of courses. I presume due
    to the No Walking policy that the design and construction of the tracks
    must require more attention, therefore reflected in the cost. Also is there
    any consideration for rainfall and the effects the tracks may have on a 
    course when there are heavy downpours?
c) Due to usage and the numbers on courses the time to play a round will 
    slow down.  Have there been any reports of the carts coming into play 
    when congestion is at its highest i.e. those following a four ball with four
    carts stopped waiting for those 4 ball/4 carts playing the Green ahead –
    due to say lack of skill or the wayward shot have cart interfered with the
    game either by being hit or by distracting the players due to proximity   
    to the course?
d) As Designers and Architects do you see the merits of No Walking
    Course – not to be confused with mixed courses that allow the player
    the option to walk or ride. In your experience are they actually faster   
    than a walking course?

My opinion is I expect well known, and I firmly believe given the players NO Option – that he/she must not walk is the first step to seriously changing the game away from its roots and its origin. However I would like to understand the problems (if any) in the design and construction of No Walking Courses may generate. I presume that the Client would have advised that this was his intention within his original brief.

As Architects/Designers, a Commission is a Commission, so I expect that many may feel that they do not want to delve into the ‘Political Correctness’ of No Walking Courses, but I would be most interested in your opinions, as first and foremost you must be golfers and learnt the game in the traditional manner of Walking.

Melvyn

I am not sure archies intentionally design courses which can't be walked.  In fact, I would be most surprised if they did.  I think it is more a matter of circumstances (mountains, climate) and ownership policy.  That said, and do keep in mind that I believe the design of the best courses almost inherently includes them being walkable (if not a good walk), why do you believe that riding courses alter the game - other than the obvious of guys don't walk?  Is the game altered all that much and if so, as you seem to suggest, how?

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

Not a lot of time to answer, but here are a few thoughts, some of which Andy touches on.....

Carts allow courses that wouldn't have otherwise been possible in the mountains.  They also allow them to be stretched further through real estate (not quite as nice)

Even "walking holes" need to stretch the distance between green and next tee to accomodate paths safely in those areas, so courses are a bit bigger and not as walkable almost by definition.  In some cases, such as real estate or to use great topo, holes have been separated by far greater distances.  Travel time between holes is a signifigant portion of slow play.

Whereas we used to worry about walking circulation, i.e. the approach area and the direct walking line to the next tee, we must now worry as much or more about the walking circulation from cart path to green.  On expected high play courses, bunkering can be affected to make sure it doesn't block that circulation.  Granted, that could also happen on walking courses, but more the front and back bunkers, whereas cart circulation requires us to consider the side bunkers more often.  Ditto on the fw bunkers, with fewer being placed on the cart path side of the fw if encouraging cart circulation is desired.

At first blush, I think carts wouldn't impact speed of play any more than walking, circulation wise.  They just impact it differently.  Most blocages are probably linked to routing, i.e., if golfers must walk back to the next tee from a green, the next group must wait if they are walking or if they are going to their carts.  I do see a lot of scorekeeping in carts before moving, but that always happened walking as well.

Most gca's also devote some earthmoving to hiding paths, which can lead to more drainage structures as well, if the path is tipped against the view line artifically.  Some, like fazio go to extremes to hide them - IMHO they are so far out in the rough that they add travel time to the round, if used at all!  Even at greens and tees, paths can be placed too close or too far from those entities. If too far, people take short cuts. If too close, they visually impact play far too much.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Andy/Sean

Taking the location of the course (to the extent that they need the cart i.e. mountain/desert etc sites to effectively make these type of courses playable) out of this discussion. I was wondering if the clients actually say from the start “this is going to be a No Walking Course” and if so are there anything out of the normal to take into account apart from, I suspect more detailed foundations for the heavy use the tracks will receive.

This topic was not intended to convey my views on No Walking Courses just to see if there was a different approach to the design/construction process. However, in answer to your question “why do you believe that riding courses alter the game “ – I see no continuity of the game,  you hit your ball, then walk to the buggy, follow the path which may well be hidden and unable to offer you a view of the course, then you get off walk to your ball – then and only then start to view and plan your next shot, before retiring back to the buggy to continue the process until near the Green. It seems to blind you to the majority of the architecture of the course, not enabling you time to see and understand its shape, hazards and contours plus the balance and majesty of what has been put in place for you and your game, effectively half divorcing your from the proceedings you are meant to be totally in tune with. Perhaps a better explanation is travelling from one side of a beautiful mountain range to the other, some prefer to use the train and are oblivious to the darkness for most of the journey only coming out into the light from time to time between the peaks to see the wonders before them, before rapidly re-entering the next tunnel until they clear the mountain range. Others want to drive over the mountain enjoying the curves, shapes, colours and experience of feeling the wonders of life all around them and appreciating the work involved, hopefully not missing out by being closer and more in touch with the land. I hate being in the dark, I do not like tunnels, they may get you to Point B quickly but without feeling and more importantly there were no tunnels in my day when I was taught the game of Golf which required 100% commitment to walk.

   
Jeff

Thanks for the insight. The point re distance between Tees/Greens seems to more a USA problem (or should I say an acceptable) than here in the UK. Are you aware from the start that it will be a not Walking Course as I mentioned above?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()