[Sean_A]

What do folks think about the quotes below? 


"What I'm saying is that at the end of the day, the only thing a golfer has to judge the quality of a course by is the end result.  If it is routed such as to be "unwalkable" by anyone other than an Olympic-conditioned athlete, then the factors that led to that result sort of become irrelevant.

If I find that someone decided to built a course where a combination of wetlands, housing considerations, steep slopes, etc., leads to an unwalkable course, am I supposed to somehow give that course "alibi points" in my own personal determination of the course's attributes simply because of those external factors? 

I am not necessarily faulting the architects.  Sometimes, it's impossible to make lemonade out of spoilt lemons." 



"As much as I'd love to look at a golf COURSE as 18 separate holes, the terms are incongruous.

The term "course" implies something of a contiguous, connected nature, which should have some degree of integration and natural flow.  To have the golf "course" continually broken up with "non-golfing" related ground (i.e. houses, wetlands, property divisions, large climbs or long descents) does have a negative impact on the course, pure and simple, and despite the fact that each individual hole might have quality within it.

The term "routing", as I'm sure you know, talks about how well those individual holes are interconnected, along with with how well the entire property is utilized for golfing purposes.  A routing that is continually broken up with lengthy non-golf divisions ultimately brings the quality of the routing into serious and justifiable question.

Once again, I'm not disputing the reasons why this is sometimes, and even often necessary.  I'm simply bemoaning that fact as well as saying that such a golf course can be good, but can never be considered a great routing by definition."

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - I think it is a clear case of beauty is in eye of the beholder and sometimes architects, especially the lesser known ones ike me do get not so good bits of land. There was a thread about rate this hole where huge power lines crossed the and , I expect many high profie archies woud not take the job. Again some bits of land lets say Southern Spain are unwalkabe.
its for you the player to add it all and decide, but a few great holes are often enough to convince many.

[Jerry Kluger]

Sean: It appears to me that the first set of quotes are a more diplomatic way of expressing what is said in the second set - it could be the same person on two different occasions but I doubt it. I do agree that when factors other than the golfing experience play a major role  in the routing of the course that it lowers the overall quality of the project. There are instances where the terrain simply does not allow for a course which is walkable no matter how it is routed.  But other than that, I too would lower my evaluation of the golfing experience where walking the course was not a serious consideration in its design.

[Lou_Duran]

Different courses for different horses?

Is the routing an end in itself?  Or is the enjoyment derived from the activity (golfing) of primary importance?

If the architect is building a course where 70%+ percent of the play will be on carts, should the proximity of tees to greens be the  significant routing factor?

Is walking the primary criterion for a routing?  Or should the integration of a variety of sufficiently different holes and the use of the best features of the site be paramount, particularly when a large percentage of the rounds will not be played on foot?

Much to our chagrin, it seems that walking is not what most golfers are interested in doing.  Would it make sense for an architect who has to make a living to give overwhelming consideration to that aspect of routing?

I am just guessing, but I suspect that a good majority of golfers would opine that a fine, diverse collection of holes accessed via cartpaths  is a superior job of routing to a compact design where one can step off from a green to the subsequent tee. 

[Bill_McBride]

Different courses for different horses?

Is the routing an end in itself?  Or is the enjoyment derived from the activity (golfing) of primary importance?

If the architect is building a course where 70%+ percent of the play will be on carts, should the proximity of tees to greens be the  significant routing factor?

Is walking the primary criterion for a routing?  Or should the integration of a variety of sufficiently different holes and the use of the best features of the site be paramount, particularly when a large percentage of the rounds will not be played on foot?

Much to our chagrin, it seems that walking is not what most golfers are interested in doing.  Would it make sense for an architect who has to make a living to give overwhelming consideration to that aspect of routing?

I am just guessing, but I suspect that a good majority of golfers would opine that a fine, diverse collection of holes accessed via cartpaths  is a superior job of routing to a compact design where one can step off from a green to the subsequent tee. 

I sincerely hope that last paragraph isn't the truth.  I can think of no finer experience that walking less than 30 yards to the next tee.  Even closer is better if it's safe.  Mid-Pines is a great example.

What's wrong with a "fine, diverse collection of holes accessed via......." feet?  You can still ride.  In other words, does it have to be either/or?

[Joe Hancock]

Lou,

I understand the realities and practicalities of what you posted. But, I think at the end of the day, the golf courses that are considered great architecture(and that's what we strive to discuss here) are almost always courses that were routed with a nod towards walking.

I read your post and immediately thought of the Tim Cate thread. I don't know his work, nor the man. But it appears he is busy, which is a good thing. But, from most accounts, his work isn't upper echelon.....not to say it isn't very adequate for the masses or the target audience though. He's filling a need in a certain area, and apparently coupling good business skills with providing what that type of customer wants. Wrong? No, not by any means. World class architecture for the masses? Doesn't appear so.

The firms doing great work, architecturally, in the past decade or so are not particularly busy. It's not because the work isn't great, but it's a higher art form that doesn't address the needs or desires of the masses.

Bottom line is I think the walking aspect of golf has to be addressed to stand the test of time in order for a course to be considered one of the greats.

Joe

[Adrian_Stiff]

A lot of great courses in order to keep up their lengths now have back tees with unenjoyable walking, perhaps back up hills or back against the run of play. I think walking is better but an awfull lot of golf is played in carts now and to not cater for those golfers is often financial suicide.

[Kirk Gill]

I don't know that I can necessarily argue too heartily with either point, although I will certainly add that I am not as particular about these issues as the writers, specifically in the first quote. I probably do give some consideration to the architect regarding the use of a difficult site when considering walkability. Still, I have to agree that it's about the course on the ground, and that's what needs to be assessed. It's like when you go out to eat at a restaurant and get lousy service. The truth might be that two of the waitstaff happened to not show up that evening, and a skeleton crew is doing the best they can.  But at the end of the evening, it's the quality of that experience that is assessed, not all of the external factors that affected it.

Generally speaking, I guess I'm not so into blanket statements about golf courses, as I've found that I can enjoy a round on most courses, even though only a few really get the architectural juices flowing. If you're assessing "greatness," however, you're talking about quite different criteria, where issues that might seem less important on a lesser course become major.

[Garland Bayley]

A lot of great courses in order to keep up their lengths now have back tees with unenjoyable walking, perhaps back up hills or back against the run of play. I think walking is better but an awfull lot of golf is played in carts now and to not cater for those golfers is often financial suicide.

How is building a walkable course not catering to cart riders?
Are card riders demanding real estate courses so they can get full value out of their carts?

[Lou_Duran]

What's wrong with a "fine, diverse collection of holes accessed via......." feet?  You can still ride.  In other words, does it have to be either/or?

1)  Absolutely nothing.
2)  Perhaps not in the past when there were many great sites available for golf and not much in the way of environmental, zoning, and permitting restrictions.  Think of your favorite walking course in some detail, and consider the development issues you would encounter today to build it.  Would NGLA or CPC exist as we know them if today's economic and regulatory hurdles had to be cleared?  I think not.

Joe,

In some areas where walking is part of the culture, sacrificing better holes for a more walkable experience could very well be a good trade-off.  In much of Texas where there is not an abundance of great sites and the weather is extreme, greater distances to find better holes is probably the better choice.  Will tighter budgets resulting from populist egalitarian policies reverse this trend?  Only to the extent that golfers will continue to play with less money in their pocket and without a cart.  Many golfers I've known won't play if they can't ride.

Whether gca has similarities with various forms of fine arts has been discussed here before.  I tend to like "artful" hazards, mostly bunkers, and designs built with a large scale.  I like eye candy.  On the other hand, I also value a challenging design full of variety, but not back-breaking.  I think that this is very hard to achieve on a compact site where minimizing distances between greens and tees is given great priority.   
 

[Sean_A]

I am of two minds about the opening sentence.  I want to give the archie a break, not by accpeting his circumstances, but by at least knowing what they were.  However, this isn't really an option so in the end I am forced to judge based on the product under my feet regardless of budgets, terrain, weather and maintenance.   On the flip side of the coin, I try not to blame the archie unless a distinct pattern emerges.

However, the routing comments are spot on imo.  I think creating what I call a proper walking course is probably more difficult than not having to and thus I highly value that skill.  Some say it is mostly a matter of restraint, nevermind, whatever it is down to I find it very pleasing.  Disjointed golf for the sake of "high shot values" can only work a few times on any given course.  After that, imo it either demonstrates a lack of skill or highlights the imperfections of the land.  Either way, it is a bad deal.  That isn't to say perfectly serviceable courses can't be built with a bad deal, but they can never be ideal courses and thus will nearly always suffer in comparison to the best courses.  

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()