Has the "Walk in the Park" illusion hurt golf architecture?

[John Kavanaugh]

And this matters why?

[Charlie Goerges]

Golf is not sex and should be practiced at a much larger frequency under any and all conditions.  For the younger posters out there just wait till you bump fifty with three kids and you will understand.

Hell John, I am only bumping 30 with 2 kids and I understand.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Oh no    This must be the oldest course in the world 
http://www.bedrockgolfclub.com/golf/proto/bedrockgolfclub/

[William King]

With apologies to either Brad Klein or Jay Flemma, has the idea that golf is like a walk in the park distracted the architect from the game of the game?  Where did this concept originate and who first took consideration of the golfers time between shots?  Would the game be better or worse if the time between shots became negligible and how may modern technology lead the way in the future? 

Well since very few modern course are designed to be walked, I don't understand the question. Now if you asked was golf like sitting on a (two man) park bench, then I would get it

[John Kavanaugh]

I believe more now than ever that the Walk in the Park advocates are behind the demise of the game and the lack of quality of so many modern courses.  If golf was limited to the blind - what design aspects would be eliminated thus making the game more affordable without compromising shot values?

A few quick thoughts.

Expensive water front land.
Artificially natural transition tie ins.
Flamboyant bunker construction.
Fancy bridges and clubhouse facades.
Framing.
Routing for views.
Dune melting for views.
Property border landscaping.
Freakishly pristine conditioning.

After considerable thought it is my estimation that the Walk in the Park requirement for those who see the sport as secondary to the game is responsible for over 80% of the cost of modern golf course construction.  It can even be said that Walk in the Park is 100% responsible for the requirement of 18 tees with 18 greens and par near 70.

[JMEvensky]

"see the sport as secondary to the game"

I have no idea who/what is responsible for the demise of the game nor do I necessarily agree that golf is even in demise.

However,if the point is that all things GOLF should be secondary to the actual playing of it,then I agree.

Great courses,perfect maintenance melds,glorious scenery,etc. are just bonuses.For me,actually playing the worst goat track on the face of the Earth is more fun than talking about anything golf-related.

It's a game that's meant first to played and its various components argued about when playing isn't possible.

[Peter Pallotta]

Not one of your best gambits, John, that last post. 

But your idea about its role in having 18 greens and tees and a par around 70 is a very interesting one.

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

Because technology has not advanced to the point that we can eliminate or greatly reduce the travel time between shots, even though carts, GPS and lasers help, I am having trouble communicating this utopian model I imagine.  One early clue about the frivolity of the Walk in the Park concept as it relates to the sport is the oft use phrase by touring pros how they like a course "Because it was all right out in front of them."  You gotta love it when the palk walkers jump on this concept as a bad thing.

[Adam Clayman]

So now there are advocates?

What's interesting is that the Walking part of WITP is not an imperative.

You're gonna have go a little lower to get you GW freak on.

[John Kavanaugh]

Adam,

This has nothing to do with how Golfweek rates courses.  I only mentioned Brad Klein and Jay Flemma because the term is claimed by both and I didn't want to offend either by omission.  I think Jay may have even copyrighted the term.  Maybe trademarked is the correct term.  A link to Jay's sight where he references such fact. http://jayflemma.thegolfspace.com/

[Tom Naccarato]

John, I've also heard that Jay has copyrighted the use of the question mark.  How appropriate.....

Mike Cirba,
Speaking as someone that was confined to a golf cart for quite sometime due to physical problems that many of you may want to think are in one's complete control--if it wasn't for the fact that I could go out and try to couple a few golf holes just to mentally make it to the next week because I was using a cart, I think I would have gone mad. Thankfully, there is recovery, but it requires trudging the road everyday.

Yes, Golf on foot, there is nothing better. I truly do believe that. But we don't live in a world where the ground is always as we like it, where it is firm and springy and fun. Common practice has moved the Sport into the realm of soft and sticky. Melvyn, if you could see some of the places where they put these courses here in the states you wouldn't want to walk on foot. There is a big difference walking a course in Southern California that's on the side of a mountain and is soaking wet and the temperature is 80-90 degrees F so they can keep these ridiculous grasses they chose for indifferent climates, alive. When playing them, think about walking on foot at those temperatures. Its a huge difference over 50-60 degrees F on the firm and fast fairways of St. Andrews. Then think about trying to do it at over 500 pounds with no excuses left to give.

I say this to all of you: This sport that I love so dear, sometimes we "participants" have to get over ourselves and realize that just the ability to go hit the ball, let alone be out in the open--is the most important thing. Yes, we need to protect first, but we also have to learn--in this age at least--to point and shoot last. When I say that, my meaning is more to get over our convictions and get on with celebrating the Sport for the freedom it allows. Melvyn, I know your a good man and a just one at that. One that is carrying on the traditions his Great Great Grandfather gifted us, but damn it, we have to learn that the world changes. Sometimes good, most of the times bad, but for the most part we have to grow with it. If convicting those confined to a golf cart because thats the only way they can play, well, the Sport shall never live. At least by the freedoms it has shown us.

I believe in a Walk in the Park and what the term means in its complete context. For me it means the freedom to leave a more mundane difficult life behind, and completely be at one with nature and life in the truest spiritual sense. Sometimes people have to do it behind the wheel of a cart; but for those that don't, celebrate that freedom. That's what the greatest walk is all about--to allow each man to be his own.

Also, I truly do believe is the exact reason why Dr. Bradley S. Klein came up with the term as far as rating golf courses is concerned.

[John Kavanaugh]

Thanks Tommy.  I do seem to recall that the only difficult time had by you during your most difficult time was that time spent between shots.  Wouldn't you agree that far too many architects focus on this aspect of design far too much.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tommy,

That's completely understood and if you note, I did say "if I were still able to walk".    I was also speaking for myself and not about anyone else.

I am not a cart abolitionist, and I know and understand that many people would not be able to play without the use of a cart, including my dad over the past couple of years, as well as another gentleman I play with regularly.   In fact, if it's just the two of us, I'll gladly ride so that they have companionship.

I just enjoy the game a great deal more on foot;  I get more in tune with the round, I relax more, I get better exercise, I focus better, and I generally play better.    Too often cart-golf is some circuitious, winding cart-path odyssey behind containment mounds that is dizzying and disorienting, not to mention frustrating.

I fully support the need for both methods to traverse our courses, however.   I would object to the elimination of carts as much as I do the bigger threat which seems the elimination of the walking option.

John K.

What you've been describing sounds more like T-ball than golf.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

What I describe is the exact same game on the same surfaces without consideration for the time spent between shots.  My best analogy is the difference between playing Golden Tee in a basement or a beer garden.  Obviously people who do not care for the game will choose the beer garden every time.  While the true lover of Golden Tee will play wherever challenged.  Golden Tee would have been a bust long ago if every purchaser was required to install all the extra frills added to golf courses to cater to those with only a passing fancy for the sport.

btw.  Much like you with golf I hate Golden Tee and would only play it in a beer garden.  I would give it up in six months if by some strange illness was forced to play it only in a basement.

[Charlie Goerges]

Tom N.

What you describe (among other things) is what makes golf a great game. The game seems to meet us halfway, or to meet us where we are. Anyone can (and should) play, and with the right attitude, will have fun. No one should be denied the chance to play this great game.

John,

I don't know why (because I've never seen or read it) but this thread made me think of your comment about a "nuclear winter golf" thread. Just the idea of such a thing is of interest to think about. For my part, in the event of an apocolyptic catastrophe, I can see golf returning to its roots. A true pastime. The original game was played as a diversion while travelling from point a to point b.

When one really thinks about it, the golf was the "walk in the park" and the walk in the park was the raison d'etre. My brother and I play "nuclear winter" golf when I go to his house. He has about 10 acres of land with various trails, clearings, gardens, barns, and cabins. We each take a club and tee off toward the barn down a small road. If we hit it in the woods, we go in and play it back out to the trail, then hit and chase it again. We discussed building a greensite and bunker somewhere with multiple tees at different angles/distances. That might ruin some of the fun though. We would be limiting ourselves somewhat by doing it.

Sorry about the long digression. I don't know exactly what I think about this thread and the question, but it definitely made me think. Thank you.

[Tom Naccarato]

Charlie,
If you ever get to Los Angeles, look me up for a game. I would like that!

[Charlie Goerges]

Tom,

Thanks for the invitation and I accept. I will get out there eventually; my wife grew up in San Diego and I’ve never been to California (we live in central Minnesota). Suffice it to say, if you're in MN, please do the same (this goes for the other GCAers as well).

[John Kirk]

John,

I also regularly cite the "walk in the park" as a primary motivation to play golf.  I love to compete and please myself and my friends by hitting a good shot now and then, but I stand by my original comment that I play mostly to exercise and spend time with friends.

Whereas I agree that this may contribute to increased cost, a well designed golf park yields better shots.  In fact, I suggest we now refer to all great golf courses as "golf parks".  And I don't care it costs more, because I like a great golf park, and I'm willing to pay.

Also, I'd say 80% of the cost to beautify a course is way too high.  Shaping and irrigation cover the bulk of initial expense, and a clever architect can build a park which minimizes maintenance cost.

Finally, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and being a veteran golfer, what I consider a beautiful park has a lot to do with the golf challenges presented.  I suggest we are talking semantics.  You see Riviera as a great golf course; to me it is a spectacularly unique and beautiful walk in the park.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

I also regularly cite the "walk in the park" as a primary motivation to play golf.  I love to compete and please myself and my friends by hitting a good shot now and then, but I stand by my original comment that I play mostly to exercise and spend time with friends.

Whereas I agree that this may contribute to increased cost, a well designed golf park yields better shots.  In fact, I suggest we now refer to all great golf courses as "golf parks".  And I don't care it costs more, because I like a great golf park, and I'm willing to pay.

Also, I'd say 80% of the cost to beautify a course is way too high.  Shaping and irrigation cover the bulk of initial expense, and a clever architect can build a park which minimizes maintenance cost.

Finally, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and being a veteran golfer, what I consider a beautiful park has a lot to do with the golf challenges presented.  I suggest we are talking semantics.  You see Riviera as a great golf course; to me it is a spectacularly unique and beautiful walk in the park.

Johnny,  (i prefer John)

I respect your stance but feel it must be tempered by the fact that in your life you are the rare bird who has banked both time and money.  The game in its current form will alwas be there for guys like you.  I am more concerned for the future generation of player who has so little of both.

[Tom Naccarato]

John Kavanuagh,
Thanks for trying to save me, but I'll save myself, thank you.....

[Jim_Kennedy]

I was somewhat surprised to see that several 'name' courses in the Phoenix/Scottsdale that were carts only are now allowing players to walk.

Is the "Walk in the Desert" any different than the WITP? 

 

[John Kirk]

THE JK,

Likewise, I respect your objective here.

Your comment raises an interesting point about the way I feel about golf.  Ever since I was a young man, I dreamed of playing golf at the best and most beautiful courses.  To a great extent, I get to do that now.  My family did not always have this luxury.  I grew up in a middle class, egalitarian environment, albeit in a very smart town.  I grew up playing sports that cost next to nothing, like basketball, baseball and ping pong.  I never played golf as a kid, and did not grow up ina country club environment.  As my family's fortunes changed, I found I am no happier than I was, and would be very happy to return to less expensive sports.  If I had to give up golf tomorrow, I would move on the next activity and never think twice.  Whatever the game, I just like to play.  And I would take more hikes and nature walks through non-golf parks.

However, if I had to return to playing flat, featureless golf courses with little strategic interest, I would probably quit golf and play something else.

The austere layout, light on aesthetics but full of strategy, may be an important part of 21st century golf architecture.

Another JK

Johnny changed back to John.  I like John better, too.  Just mixing it up.