Jim Engh par three amphitheater template?

[Rob Rigg]

Kirk,

I just find refreshing that Mr Engh will be so forthright in presenting his philosophy of GCD - I have never read anything where another architect "admitted" to maximizing visuals from cart paths because there will be mostly riders at the course or being willing to stretch green/tee transfers, etc. to find a superior hole and maximize the land.

Like I said, this is not a bad thing and I am clearly not condemning anyone for enjoying an Engh design or taking a cart on his courses. It is just interesting that some people are trying to say he does not design his courses for cart golfers when he clearly states he does - and there is nothing wrong with that. Everyone is entitled to their philosophy.

As I mentioned, and we agree on this, carts are certainly a part of golf in America, and courses will be designed in challenging "cart golf" environments.

It is fantastic to see walkers such as yourselves supporting the traditions of the game, and the Society, while also being realistic about the golfing opportunities that exist in this country (walking or cart).


A lot of topics seems to digress on this site - maybe if more people had played Engh courses we could speak more to his amphitheatre greens

[DMoriarty]

And the point that Jeff Brauer built a nearby course that is in every way as much a cartball course as Pradera somehow gets lost here.

I didn't see this before and I am not sure what you mean.   Jim Engh isn't alone in focusing on the cart baller or in favoring 'inspiring holes' over walkability.  I think there are plenty of examples, especially at the higher end.  It is pretty much the predominant philosophy, isn't it?  If you are implying that Jeff Brauer gets a pass on the board, I can only speak for myself and note that I don't think he has gotten a pass from me.   I have challenged him more than once about things he has written regarding approach and comments on design.   

______________________________________________________________________________

I agree with Rob that Jim Engh's candor on these issues is very refreshing.  That makes it all the the more strange that some feel the need to present his approach in a false light.  It is as if there are certain talking points that have to be touched upon to give a designer or course legitimacy or respectiblity, and some will try to cram any course or designer into that box whether it fits or not.   Like Matt denying there was containment around the fairways and greens at Black Rock or claiming that it is a walking course.    Or Jay claiming that the passage in Golf Week was absolutely false when in fact Engh said very similar things on this website.

The reason it matters to me is that his approach raises some pretty fundamental questions about the genre, and I think we ought to be discussing these questions.    Sadly, it is apparently impossible to get the conversation to that point because so many are so busy defending his work as something that it is not. 

[Michael Moore]

The reason it matters to me is that his approach raises some pretty fundamental questions about the genre, and I think we ought to be discussing these questions.

This is sort of what I was hoping for as well. Please proceed with this discussion, and thanks to everyone for your thorough replies.

[Matt_Ward]

Kirk G:

Welll said on the merits of Pradera.

I really liked the layout too -- yes -- it's meant for riding a cart so big freakin deal if it means walking isn't really meant for THAT layout.

Kirk, you added something in your comments that's been totally missing -- you actually played the course in question -- you are not simply isolated to the abstract contributions made by so many on this post.

Template holes and courses have been around as long as golf. I said as much previously with the airport tees from RTJ or the wooden planks used by Dye to shore up bunkers and the like.

Engh deserves high marks for creating fun and entertaining courses -- no doubt not everyone is a home run -- a few aren't better than a baseball single -- but few, if any, architects, hit design home runs all the time.

Engh's most recent layouts -- especially Four Mile Ranch -- are above and beyond what he has done previously -- and such a layout has worked well on a range of fronts that even the purists would find appealing ... low green fees, playabilty, walkability and wonderful greens mixed into a range of diverse holes. Unfortunately, the sidetracking simply regurgitates the same old story when the new one is quite impressive.

[Jay Flemma]

I had no problem whatsoever walking Pradera three different times, once in the cold.  I also walked Blackstone with three other walkers, all of whom were in their 50's.  The only two Engh courses that I think are unwalkable are Lakota and the back at redlands.  Everything else is perfectly reasonable.  (Except I have NOT played Black Rock, so that's the one I can;t comment on.)

Sheesh you guys are wusses...you'd think he was Tom Clark or Tom Jackson or something making you cross moats and traverse mountains every hole.  Just because is a little more rigorous to walk doesn't make it "cart golf" or unwalkable.  cart golf is Conlkin players Club...or Troon north or ventana canyon where tee boxes are a mile apart.  No one in reasonably good health should be complaining about Engh's recent designs and hey, you have trouble humpin' up the hill at 16 tee at Pradera?  Then switch in a powerbar for a burger.

Everyone, go play Fossil trace and red hawk ridge or Creek Club or any other post 2006 Engh for yourself and report back your findiings.  but don't believe the hype of the guys who can't stand a little hike now and then.

And another thing...a fellow GCAer who posts here a loot (not Matt Ward), told Engh back in 2005 that he and his wife Bette had trouble walking in and out of the sunken bunkers at lakota and Fossil.  So engh took the idea to heart and starting since blackstone and especially at Creek Club, he raised the floor of the bunkers to fairway grade and made the muscled sidewalls above grade so you can walk straight in and out of them without climbing.  

Here's the article i wrote about it:  http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/course_review_the_creek_club_at_reynolds_plantation

Here's an excerpt:

"A few people mentioned to Engh that they had difficulty getting in and out of the bunkers. Most of these players were older. "My wife and I had a problem getting in and out of the bunkers," said one expert golfer and course reviewer. "We mentioned this to Jim when we met him. We love his courses, but thought he could make them even more playable if people could get in and out of the bunkers more easily."

Lo! and behold! - Engh actually listened to them. Starting at Blackstone and continuing at Creek Club, Jim made the floor of the bunkers level with the fairway, then he built the enormous sidewalls towering over the fairway level. "The people spoke and I listened. I could make an equally challenging hazard, yet one that you could walk in and out of in a straight line without having to climb," Engh said.

If the lesson here is lost on you, let me break it down like a fraction: the people spoke and the architect listened. "Wow!" gushed my friend. "That's so great that he listened to us. What a super guy."

So if you have any questions, rather than trying to patchwork quilt mix and match ideas from things you find on line, pick up the phone and ask Jim yourself.

But to poo-poo something as "cart golf" because it doe4sn't fit your strict definition of minimalism or breaks mlds on design is irresponsible and disrespectful to the architect.

And you wonder why some architects don't participate?  Easy!  Some of you guys think you know better than they do!  So why should they bother?

CAVEAT:  on the photos in the article, they have them labeled incorrectly.  What is labeled the 6th is really the 4th and that's NOT fossil trace pictured.  hey!  Photo dept!  Get on that!:)

[Tim Pitner]

Everyone, go play Fossil trace and red hawk ridge or Creek Club or any other post 2006 Engh for yourself and report back your findiings.  but don't believe the hype of the guys who can't stand a little hike now and then.

Jay,

I'm an avid walker (see the current thread on walking) but I don't walk Fossil Trace or Red Hawk Ridge.  In my experience, no one does.  Which isn't to say it can't be done--but, it's not done.

[Jay Flemma]

I've walked it with plenty of GCAers...I had no trouble and neither dsid the 50-somethings we were with...

[Tim Pitner]

Jay,

Without regard to whether you walked it, there is no walking ethic or culture at Fossil Trace or Red Hawk Ridge--hardly anyone walks those courses.  That might have nothing to do with Jim Engh, but he's offered some pretty candid comments about not being particularly concerned with creating walking courses.  Whether that's a cardinal sin is up to the individual.  

[Jay Flemma]

With respect, I don't agree.  I've played them each five or six times and each time I saw plenty of walkers...about an even mix of walkers and riders.

I'm also stressing the point that to have these black and white lines drawn of "cart golf" and "not cart golf" is unfair when there is plenty of grey.  Engh has plenty of non cart golf...people just have to go and play it.  Maybe the 65-y/o bad kneed guy won;t have the same reaction as the spry 30 year old, but to have everyone's opinion tainted because of one guy who played one Engh course and another who played no Engh courses and who opine from their computer chair while sitting in their underwear in the dark surrounded by empty Pringles cans is unfair to Jim.

[Tony Weiler]

Everyone, go play Fossil trace and red hawk ridge or Creek Club or any other post 2006 Engh for yourself and report back your findiings.  but don't believe the hype of the guys who can't stand a little hike now and then.

Jay,

I'm an avid walker (see the current thread on walking) but I don't walk Fossil Trace or Red Hawk Ridge.  In my experience, no one does.  Which isn't to say it can't be done--but, it's not done.

Same for Hawktree, the only Engh course I've played.  Some walk it but 95% do not.  I tried it once, it just beat me up and I'm in pretty good shape. 

[Rob Rigg]

Jay,

Just because you can walk a course if you are in good shape, does not make it a good walking course or a good walking experience.

What most of the people who have played Engh courses seem to be saying on the thread is that the layouts they have played, with a few noted exceptions, are not "walking" courses but "cart golf" courses.

While it is commendable that Engh changed his bunkering technique to accommodate people walking in and out of the bunkers, he is an evolving artist, that has nothing to do with making his courses a walking experience versus a cart golf experience.

I do not think that there is a lot of "grey" in this issue - Courses are either good walking experiences or they are not.

If a course has consistently long green to tee transfers or drastic elevation changes that make walking difficult then it may be walkable for some but it is NOT a walking course, it is a "cart golf" course. Because some people choose to take carts on courses that are very walkable says something about that cart golfer not the course.

This is obviously not an Engh only comment - I do hope to have the chance to play some of his courses over the next couple of years. He is a very talented artist.

Back to the pringles - which I will walk off next round.

[Tim Pitner]

Jay,

Our experiences apparently differ.  When I've walked those courses, I've been in the profound minority. 

I'm not saying Engh is necessarily guilty of this (after all, he's worked on some very severe sites), but sometimes when you jump ahead from one part of the land to another via a cartpath in order to use a particular landform, you might miss something more subtle and cool in between.  To me, that's a danger of designing for cart golf--there's a tendency to go for the home run and you may end up not taking advantage of opportunities in the transition areas. 

[Jay Flemma]

Everyone, go play Fossil trace and red hawk ridge or Creek Club or any other post 2006 Engh for yourself and report back your findiings.  but don't believe the hype of the guys who can't stand a little hike now and then.

Jay,

I'm an avid walker (see the current thread on walking) but I don't walk Fossil Trace or Red Hawk Ridge.  In my experience, no one does.  Which isn't to say it can't be done--but, it's not done.

Same for Hawktree, the only Engh course I've played.  Some walk it but 95% do not.  I tried it once, it just beat me up and I'm in pretty good shape.  

I forgot about hawktree, that's another one I walked.  What's the problem there?  It's a little hilly, but a great cheap course!

Rob, again, excepting lakota and redlands, Jim does not have long walks between tee and green...nowhere near as bad as Rees or Fazio.  

As for "cart golf" This isnt a "black and white" issue, there are shades of grey.  Sometimes Jim comes in the middle, sometimes he's as as easy to walk as C&C and sometimes not.  it depends on the course.

[Kirk Gill]

I've been out at Fossil Trace a few times myself, and almost everyone rides. That said, I played a course up on the north side called Hyland Hills recently that's on a much flatter ground, and most everyone was riding there as well. So shall we characterize that as a cartball course? In a way, it's funny to talk about a "walking culture" at a public course here in the States. Sure, there's a walking "culture" at Bandon, but can you call it a culture if it's mandated? Tim, are there other public courses in the Denver area where they are creating a walking ethic? Perhaps CommonGround?

My sons and I usually play out at a place called Murphy Creek, which couldn't be an easier walk. We usually play nine holes, as their attention tends to start drifting somewhere short of 18, but they're still young. That course creates a walking ethic only through being on a bit of land that is friendly to the walker, having short green to tee distances, and by charging you less if you don't choose to ride.

But from what I see when I'm out there, most ride anyway.

I think that Tim makes a good comment when he says "sometimes when you jump ahead from one part of the land to another via a cartpath in order to use a particular landform, you might miss something more subtle and cool in between.  To me, that's a danger of designing for cart golf--there's a tendency to go for the home run and you may end up not taking advantage of opportunities in the transition areas." I think this is a fair comment, though perhaps less so for Fossil Trace than other Engh courses I've played, as FT is shoehorned into a very small bit of property, and I don't know that a lot of subtle, cool stuff was missed there.

But I do believe that  Jim Engh wants his courses to take best advantage of the natural greensites and other features that are available on the bit of land he has to work with, and wants to hit those home runs of which you speak. I'd be interested in asking him if he is willing for a course to sprawl a bit, to sacrifice some  ease of walking, to hit all of those killer spots that a particular property has to offer. I know that some might consider this question already asked and answered, but I'd still be interested in hearing his take on this.

[Jay Flemma]

Here's the story of how Fossil was built.

The land was super tight - four different little sections.  plus he had to work around not only the fossils but land for a detention center.  We're lucky to have the course and the fossils.

http://jayflemma.thegolfspace.com/?p=165

[Garland Bayley]

Jay,

Our experiences apparently differ.  When I've walked those courses, I've been in the profound minority. 

I'm not saying Engh is necessarily guilty of this (after all, he's worked on some very severe sites), but sometimes when you jump ahead from one part of the land to another via a cartpath in order to use a particular landform, you might miss something more subtle and cool in between.  To me, that's a danger of designing for cart golf--there's a tendency to go for the home run and you may end up not taking advantage of opportunities in the transition areas. 

Excellent post Tim!

[Kalen Braley]

It seems to me there is a bit more than a tad bit of hypocrisy going on between these this thread and the walking thread.

Since when is it OK for a place like Bandon to ask the golfer to walk 36 holes in day like Bandon...and everyone seems to be OK with this, especially a few who have posted in both this thread and the other one.  And yet its bad when an architect makes a 18 hole course that is tougher than average to walk and everyone pisses and moans about it.  Because outside of walking something like Sanctuary, walking 36 holes at Bandon is a tougher task than walking anything else mentioned in this thread.

[Jay Flemma]

Jay,

Our experiences apparently differ.  When I've walked those courses, I've been in the profound minority. 

I'm not saying Engh is necessarily guilty of this (after all, he's worked on some very severe sites), but sometimes when you jump ahead from one part of the land to another via a cartpath in order to use a particular landform, you might miss something more subtle and cool in between.  To me, that's a danger of designing for cart golf--there's a tendency to go for the home run and you may end up not taking advantage of opportunities in the transition areas. 

Excellent post Tim!

no it's not...its one of the most circular posts I've ever seen.  Your story is that an experienced architect who does this for a living would deliberately MISS a great piece of land in the sections between holes?  yeah, right...maybe if Mr. magoo was designing...or maybe Stevie Wonder.  Maybe its the other way around...maybe Coore and Crenshaw miss out on some great holes simply because they are too preoccupied making it flat or keeping the tee boxes to close.  I can totally turn the argument on its ear and say maybe they left some on the cutting room floor at Chechessee by trying to make it so walkable...

That's why all this pedaniticism is useless without going to play the courses in question.

What's also clear is some people don't want their minds changed.  they just want to compartmentalize Jim so it's easier for them.

[Garland Bayley]

...
As for "cart golf" This isnt a "black and white" issue, there are shades of grey.  Sometimes Jim comes in the middle, sometimes he's as as easy to walk as C&C and sometimes not.  it depends on the course.

Now we're reaching for straws! If given the same land to work with in several locations, I believe 1498 people on this website would believe that the C&C course would always be as easy as walk as the Engh course and would be much easier to walk in perhaps as much as 90% of the locations. Heck maybe even in 100% of the locations. Engh will take completely flat land and push up walking obstacles just because the golf cart allows him too.

[DMoriarty]

Jay,

Our experiences apparently differ.  When I've walked those courses, I've been in the profound minority.  

I'm not saying Engh is necessarily guilty of this (after all, he's worked on some very severe sites), but sometimes when you jump ahead from one part of the land to another via a cartpath in order to use a particular landform, you might miss something more subtle and cool in between.  To me, that's a danger of designing for cart golf--there's a tendency to go for the home run and you may end up not taking advantage of opportunities in the transition areas.  

This is a very good point, despite Jay's protestations to the contrary.    When one is looking for "inspiring" golf holes one might tend to miss subtle beauty.  

________________________________

Kalen,  

I was thinking about another hypocrisy.  The posters who have no problem with so many courses being built that are solely for cart-ballers (implicitly or explicitly) yet get uptight when a relatively minuscule number are built solely for walking golfers.  

______________________________

...
As for "cart golf" This isnt a "black and white" issue, there are shades of grey.  Sometimes Jim comes in the middle, sometimes he's as as easy to walk as C&C and sometimes not.  it depends on the course.

Now we're reaching for straws! If given the same land to work with in several locations, I believe 1498 people on this website would believe that the C&C course would always be as easy as walk as the Engh course and would be much easier to walk in perhaps as much as 90% of the locations. Heck maybe even in 100% of the locations. Engh will take completely flat land and push up walking obstacles just because the golf cart allows him too.

Not to mention that pushing up these obstacles will likely improve the "cart path experience" by providing the cart baller with a elevated view of the holes.  
________________________________________

Jay,  You more than strain your credibility when you claim that the walker to rider ratio at a course is about 1:1, then others note that almost no one walks at these places.  

[Kirk Gill]

Engh will take completely flat land and push up walking obstacles just because the golf cart allows him too.

Please. I'll call b.s. on this one, unless you can provide me with examples of doing this. Just because an architect acknowledges the existence of carts, or even is willing to try to maximize the experience for the cart golfer doesn't mean he'd want to create obstacles specifically to prevent walking golfers from enjoying their experience. I've played a few of these courses, and I haven't seen it.

I've posted on both this and the walking golfers thread. If I am a hypocrite, please point it out for me.

[Garland Bayley]

Kirk,

Please be a little more careful with your quoting. It took me awhile to figure out who I had to respond to on that one.

Example: Columbia Pt. Jim's venture into the pacific northwest and
100% of the Engh courses I have played.
 

[Pete Lavallee]

"A few people mentioned to Engh that they had difficulty getting in and out of the bunkers. Most of these players were older. "My wife and I had a problem getting in and out of the bunkers," said one expert golfer and course reviewer. "We mentioned this to Jim when we met him. We love his courses, but thought he could make them even more playable if people could get in and out of the bunkers more easily."

Lo! and behold! - Engh actually listened to them. Starting at Blackstone and continuing at Creek Club, Jim made the floor of the bunkers level with the fairway, then he built the enormous sidewalls towering over the fairway level. "The people spoke and I listened. I could make an equally challenging hazard, yet one that you could walk in and out of in a straight line without having to climb," Engh said.

That's very interesting, on my one play at The Creek Club we couldn't help but notice what a difficult time the four retirees in front of us had climbing into and out of the bunkers there. Even if the sand floor is level with the fairway how can you not avoid climbing over the squiggly berm? Perhaps you are only meant to go in and out from the rear; apparently this fact was lost on this group.

[Garland Bayley]

... doesn't mean he'd want to create obstacles specifically to prevent walking golfers from enjoying their experience. I've played a few of these courses...

He is not creating obstacles "specifically to prevent walking golfers from enjoying their experience." He is creating opportunities to get a view, because cart ball allows him to. The side effect is that he is creating (as I wrote) obstacles for walkers.

[Garland Bayley]

Kirk,

In fact I thought the walking obstacles were so absurd, I took a picture.



I had just walked over the black tee and am standing in the hollow between the black and blue tees to take the picture. On the right you can see the obstacles yet to overcome ahead just to get to the fairway.