Here we go again with the "push me, pull me" discussion on whether a good architect ought to find the best holes regardless of how far apart they are, or live with some kinky stuff to make the golf course flow as a concentric unit and not a collection of individual design exhibits.
The cart ride between #5&6 at Plantation bothers me, but not when weighed against the alternative. Wente in Livermore had a similar problem with the front nine, but they simply ran out of land and had to segment the nines between a hill that nearly requires petons to scale.
So, you need a ride to the first tee and again at the turn. Besides that, its a delightful stroll.
I think the key is to avoid a long hoof more than once. The bridge at Oakmond doesn't bother me - even though it is over an ugly and noisy highway (do they call them "beltways" back there?) because the walk is not too long.
A better question might be to ascertain a good rule of thumb establishing a maximum distance between holes (assuming flat ground). At some point, it becomes distracting and breaks the rhythm of the round.
I HATED the backtrack at Rustic Canyon, but Neal reminded me that when the trees grow up, it will be a pleasant stroll through the shade and not a dusty trudge in the hot sun.
I thought to pace off the distance yesterday between the 15th and 16th at Cypress Point, but it would have ruined the moment. Some walks defy all the rules . . . . a modern guy would have cut all the cypress and pine trees so that you could see the ocean all the way from the 15th green.
Uphill walks to the next tee are to be avoided unless there is an immediate payoff at the top. . . . . and it ought to be a good one. The climb up the hill after #15 at Eagle Point is worth the sweat. There are three climbs at Coyote Moon that are silly backtracks up a steep grade to an unnatural terrace tee just for the "wow" factor and a downhill tee shot.
The trouble is that I saw a perfectly good tee box positions a short walk from the previous green that would have worked fine.
You have to weigh whether it is worth it to route a course like that.
Why?
Because only players in really fine shape are going to walk a course with some steep climbs and distances between holes. I believe it is absolutely impossible to fully comprehend the architectural intent and all the little subtle features when zipping along on the fringe of the fairway in a damned buggy!
I've said it before, if you wouldn't comtemplate the composition of a painting standing off at the side, why would you do it with a golf hole? Stupid Stupid Stupid.
Now, maybe I'm speaking as a rater, because there is an awfully fine line between a really good course and a Top 100 candidate. If a track requires a cart, soooooo much goes unnoticed.
Plus, how the heck can you conjure up a number for the "Walk in the Park Test" when you spent the day bouncing along on bad pavement, paying more attention to dodging a crash into the beverage cart than trying to understand the bunkering scheme?
Now, everything has its limits, too. Sometimes a quirky hole that gets from one point another can come out great. Scotland and Ireland are full of them. . . . . and sometimes it comes out like #14 at Cuscowilla.