News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #100 on: September 13, 2009, 09:07:19 PM »


 My ideal golf experience would be to walk straight from my car to the first tee without seeing a single paid employee of the club, shake hands with the people I'll be playing with and start walking and hitting the ball immediately, continuing until the round ends. I require exactly zero services, staff, waiters, caddies, helpers, marshals or other paid or unpaid help to enjoy my round.

Exactly why I escape to the UK twice a year...
for the golf... the rest is utter nonsense which makes me a complete hypocrite :o
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #101 on: September 13, 2009, 09:37:33 PM »
Two things.  First, Patrick, while I agree with most of what you say, carts are generally very, very profitable, even accounting for additional maintenance costs.  These costs include both additional labor costs (stuff like putting up ropes, seeding/sodding worn areas, and other things), and operating costs like leasing a fleet of carts, cart path maintenance, additional fertilizer, seed and sod, etc.  You also have to factor in lost revenue from the loss of members if a private course doesn't have carts.  A pretty basic analysis gives a ROI approaching 50%, without figuring in the loss of play and members.  Caddy programs at public courses are toast, but the maintenance of a caddy program is more a matter of culture than cost.  If the caddy fee drops too low, you get no caddies.  If the cart fee goes too high, you lose those folks. 

Second, when one of these one of these threads comes up about carts and some indicate that those who take carts are termagants who have no right to be on a golf course, Bob Huntley usually makes a very eloquent post calling those posters out for their arrogance.  The bone thrown to "medical necessity" is a nice try, but pain and necessity are relative things.  Ever play 18 holes, or even 9, with someone with really, really flat feet? or spoken to diabetics who, though quite healthy, can put their feet in danger with a blister?  Tell them what you think.

Jeff
That was one hellacious beaver.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #102 on: September 14, 2009, 01:56:40 AM »

Caddies are not used so much because they are too expensive.  

Compared to what ?
What's the going cart fee ?
What's the going hourly rate for nearby businesses that employ young people.


When it was just rich folks playing caddies were in vogue.  

That's nonsense.


After WWII with the rise of not so rich folks playing, caddies started to fall by the wayside

That's more nonsense.


and by the 80s with the mega rise of carts the story was written.  

The "mega" rise in carts you mention could only be possible if cart use was priced lower than caddy use.
Clubs are at fault for the demise of their caddy programs, either because they mispriced carts and caddies, didn't want caddies, or didn't support caddy programs.


Its not much different to robots replacing humans on production lines.  
They are cheaper and more reliable.  

More nonsense.
The club sets the pricing models.
If carts are cheaper, and caddies more expensive, you've been slain by your own sword.


Unfortunately, robots and carts don't then buy goods and games of golf.  
Its a trade-off America has been making for 35 years.

The nonsense from you is unending.
At clubs I'm familiar with the caddy programs are flourishing.
And, it didn't happen by accident, it was a conscious business decision.


BTW - When the economics of caddies don't work and yet a club sets a rule whereby caddies will be used that is subsidy for caddies because folks not interested in using a caddie have to pay for their services.

Only because you failed in structuring your pricing model.
 


You are spouting more rubbish on this thread than you are whining about ND's loss.
Congratulate UofM for their victory like a proper chap and move on. 

I didn't whine and I did acknowledge UM's victory.
Richard introduced the ND-UM game results in gloating fashion, I just reminded him that there's a distinction in how a game is played and that should be considered before gloating. 


Economics is the reason for the demise of caddie programs.  Nobody likes getting ripped off and caddies are the most expensive way to get a bag around the course. 

More nonsense, especially from someone who has no experience with the evolution of caddy programs post WWII and pre and post the initial introduction to carts.


This is why there are relatively few clubs with good caddie programs. 


More nonsense, most clubs in the Met area have good caddy programs.


So in a way you are right, clubs are at fault for the demise of caddie programs because they allowed caddie prices to rise too high. 

Have you heard of minimum wage and child labor laws ?

I think the reason for the demise is that they underpriced cart usage and allowed golfers to take carts without a caddy


Let me get this straight, you believe that caddies are cheaper than carts and if they aren't, it is because clubs make carts too cheap? 

Obviously your reading comprehension is lacking.
Carts are cheaper than caddies because clubs priced them that way.
Reread my post on the evolution of cart use and you'll understand.


One flaw in your thinking is most guys don't like to take a bath. 
If a club starts charging for a cart the going rate of a caddie (a proper caddie, not a bag carrier boy with an "A" tag on his shirt) then my guess is the members might complain. 

It's got nothing to do with taking a bath, it's got to do with pricing caddies to meet a number of criteria, while at the same time pricing carts accordingly.

If you mandate caddy use, you can price cart use almost as low as you want.


Lord, I have heard members complain often enough about artificially inflated cart fees even when they were $10 ott. 

Members complain about everything.
If you ran a club based on complaints, you'd have a horrible club.
In addition, you can't run a club based on the lowest common denominator.
A club is a luxury.


Guys start to add it all up and quickly discover they could have had a weekend away somewhere. 
Its easy to check genuine cart prices Pat - just call the local public courses. 
Keeping cart prices artificially high to make caddies seem a more competitive option is a form of subsidy which tells me that the "program" is only healthy if members' choices are artificially limited.  Let caddies compete straight up against other forms of getting a bag around a course and you find the true worth of caddie programs. 

Good caddies aren't going to sit around all day, hoping to get out, only to make minimum wage.
If you want to keep cart prices very low, insist that members taking a cart must also take a caddy, and then price carts accordingly.

Initially, to take a cart, many clubs insisted that you had to have a written and approved medical excuse.


I reckon you must live in a tender world otherwise known as the posh country club. 
Just remember, that the country club set is a very small minority of golfers and thus doesn't accurately reflect what goes on in the golf world at large.

More nonsense.  My early play was at Public courses, before golf carts were in use.
And, the "country club world" is where golf is played and caddies are used.
What goes on in the rest of the world isn't germane to this subject.
I'm contexting my remarks based on clubs in my geographic area and at the courses I've been to outside my area.

Most golfers/members don't want to play behind four bozos riding in a cart that take forever to play because they can't locate their golf balls.

And, unaccompanied guests should always be required to take a caddy
   


Pat

Hmmm, yes, you were very gracious with your congratulations. 

The Met?  How many clubs are in the Met?  How many clubs are there in the world?  How many golf courses are there in the world?  Broaden your thinking and perhaps the penny will drop. 

I guess we have to take baby steps with you.  When you admit that taking a caddie is the most expensive way to get a bag round the course because people cost more than carts, carrying or trolleys, we can carry on this so called discussion. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Chechesee Creek & Old Barnwell

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #103 on: September 14, 2009, 09:33:52 AM »
Pat

Hmmm, yes, you were very gracious with your congratulations. 

I didn't say I was "very" gracious, "very" is your word.

You're also the one who injected college football into this thread.


The Met?  How many clubs are in the Met? 

Approximately 403.


How many clubs are there in the world? 
How many golf courses are there in the world? 

I don't know, but, perhaps you can enlighten us by telling us how many there are AND more importantly, at how many of those clubs you have FIRST hand experience and knowledge with respect to their caddy programs and club cultures..

I suspect the number is infinitesimal.

Thus your frame of reference and certitude is rather limited.


Broaden your thinking and perhaps the penny will drop.

That's funny.
You have far, far, far less experience and exposure to clubs than me, yet you want me to broaden my thinking.

Why don't you try increasing your data base ten fold, then perhaps you'll have an inkling of what you're talking about, instead of making pronoucements about caddy programs in existance decades before you were born.
 

I guess we have to take baby steps with you.  When you admit that taking a caddie is the most expensive way to get a bag round the course because people cost more than carts, carrying or trolleys, we can carry on this so called discussion. 

Ciao
[/quote]

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #104 on: September 14, 2009, 02:42:43 PM »
As to the question posed in Subject Line, this debate is perplexing.  At least in the United States, for the past 20 or 30 years golf carts have been taking over the game and as an inevitable consequence have severely impacted golf course design.  Some might argue that this has been good for course design-- we've had a proliferation of new courses featuring "inspiring" golf holes built on sites previously thought unsuitable for golf, for example.  But to my mind there have been some severe negative consequences as well, both to golf architecture and to golf.  For example, many golf courses are no longer built for the walking golfer.   Given that quality walkable golf courses have largely become the exception rather than the rule, it perplexes me that some get uptight over the miniscule percentage of courses that are trying to preserve a bit of traditional golf and golf course design. 

The vast majority of newer "quality" courses are built specifically and sometimes exclusively for cart-ballers.   Many (most?) of the "top" designers even focus on maximizing the quality of the golf cart experience, though doing so is often to the detriment of walkability.   And, whether they admit it or not, magazines and reviewers heap accolades on these cart-ball courses without regard to walkability, as if doing away with walking has no impact on the quality of the course!  In other words, it is hard to imagine what those who prefer to ride have to complain about.  While walking golfers might have to trek to rural Oregon to find a legitimate traditional golf experience, the golf cart experience is everywhere.

As for those admonishing courses for a walking only policy, I don't get these personal choice, freedom, or liberty arguments.   I prefer to walk, so is it an affront to my liberty and freedom of choice that so many courses are not reasonably walkable?   Of course not.   The Golf Cart Experience is just another product that I often choose to forgo.  Likewise if you don't want to walk you are free to pass on the Traditional Golf Experience.   If you don't like Bandon's policy, play somewhere else.

I am much more sympathetic to those of advanced age and with medical issues, but given that most Traditional Golf Experience courses have policies that take this into consideration, this seems like a red-herring issue.  Get a doctor's note.   And for those who think this is too much of a burden, see the paragraph immediately above.  The Traditional Golf Experience does not involve carts racing around or paths mucking things up, so it seems reasonable for those selling the Traditional Golf Experience to have quality control procedures in place.   Besides, provided that carts available, I doubt that Bandon turns down many procedurally correct health related requests.  Surely they don't want to deny a cart to someone with a health issue only to have them drop dead or suffer serious injury on the course.   

Plus the "get a note" policy is very accommodating when compared to the Golf Cart Experience.  My doctor has encouraged me to get in better shape and to lose a few pounds (a few dozen is more like it.)   I am sure he would gladly write a note prescribing that I walk when I golf.    Do you suppose if I take that note to some Cart Track they will add walking paths and rearrange the course so as to make it reasonably walkable? 

For those like Lou's friends who were not in shape to hack a Bandon trip, perhaps they should look at a trip to Bandon like a trip Heli-Skiing in British Columbia.   No doubt a great experience, but those partaking better be in shape or they will be miserable.  Moreover, those with them and waiting on them will suffer as well.

___________________________________________________


As for caddies I am all for them at places like Bandon.  Without them it would be harder to justify the no-cart Traditional Golf Experience, because fewer would be able to make it around twice or even once.   And with the Traditional Golf Experience (no carts) the caddies get enough work and make enough money so the jobs are highly sought after, and so Bandon can insist that they are knowledgeable and professional. 

I sometimes actually enjoy having a caddy but I suspect that forcing mandatory caddies on golfers sours some who might otherwise be a good fit for the courses.  Maybe it is generational or has to do with changing views on social status and class, but many are intimidated and uncomfortable with a caddy, and others just enjoy the game more without paying for the added company.  It is difficult situation for courses I realize because if golfers are not required to take them then it is tough to get good ones.    But the Bandon formula seems to work; disallow carts and make your golf so damn compelling that people want to play until they drop, and more will need a caddy if only so they can keep on playing.   
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #105 on: September 14, 2009, 03:14:20 PM »
But recreational sports should be enjoyed however one likes.  For example my hockey league is non-checking -- because that's how us old guys like it (and we all have to get up & go to our real jobs the next day).  Outlawing riding at a golf course seems like outlawing no-check hockey leagues.  Or outlawing softball and making men play baseball --- because that's clearly the way the game was meant to be played.

And I say all this as an adamant walker.  And as someone who believes cartballers are certainly no faster than walkers.


Jason, your hockey analogy is interesting, but I think it might cut in the opposite direction.   Your hockey league is based on the exclusion of a certain type or style of hockey, isn't it?   And there is good reason to exclude checking.  It is the only way to preserve the game as you prefer it to be played.  Allowing checking would be antithetical to the purpose of the league.

Similar to your hockey league, Bandon prefers things a certain way - a traditional golf experience, one excluding carts.   Those who want to check can find another hockey league.   Those who want to ride in a cart can find another course.  Lord knows they have plenty to choose from.

Because, while the result might not be quite as jarring as a hard hockey check, allowing carts at Bandon would inevitably undermine the Traditional Golf Experience.   The turf would suffer, the views would suffer, the caddy program would suffer, the clientele would change, the atmosphere would suffer, the uniqueness would suffer.  Even the bar receipts might suffer-- the out of shape golfers would be out playing instead of drinking in the bar all day.  In short, it would be less of a Traditional Golf Experience.  
« Last Edit: September 14, 2009, 03:21:19 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #106 on: September 14, 2009, 04:03:42 PM »
Chapeau Mr Moriarity - two great posts

Look at Pebble Beach now versus whenever it did not have those eyesore cart paths - the aesthetic experience has clearly been changed for the worst.

As Mr Doak has mentioned in the past, Pac Dunes could not have been designed the same way if it was not "Walking Only". The inclusion of cart paths would have limited his ability to work with the land, and no cart paths but the allowance of carts would never work with the fescue grass (never mind the weather).

Walking only courses are like an endangered species that should be encouraged to reproduce.

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #107 on: September 14, 2009, 05:01:36 PM »
There is no question in my mind that walking golf is the best golf. However riding golf is better than no golf. I am glad people who for whatever reason cannot walk still desire the game. I do not see the wisdom of rules like walking only. I also do not like clubs who make you pay to walk or prohibit trollies to offset loss of cart revenue

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #108 on: September 14, 2009, 06:32:24 PM »
David, I don't disagree with what  you're asserting, although I don't remember a lot of people getting uptight about the existence of walking-only clubs. My only issue on this thread has been the desire of some to smugly dismiss those who have difficulties walking 18, for ANY reason. A person can assert their preference for walking without being an asshole about it.

There's no doubt that the predominance of carts has affected architecture. Because all of the ODG courses were designed prior to the cart, there is no doubt that allowing for carts, adding paths, or otherwise mucking up the landscape to accomodate carts creates an alteration to these courses, and there's not much positive I can say about that. As to courses designed with the cart in mind, well, I'm not going to blame architects for doing it given the realities of their profession. I won't even blame those who try to make the most of it. A few have been able to take the high road and have the opportunity, in conjunction with the course owners, to design courses "like they used to," and one can only hope that there are enough people who support this idea to keep those courses "in the green," going forward.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #109 on: September 14, 2009, 08:05:45 PM »
Kirk,

I am sorry if I came across as being an "asshole"  It wasn't my intention.   Perhaps some of those you think are acting smug are just frustrated with the issue.  Excluding walkers is a regular part of golf these days, so it seems odd that a few courses catering to walkers could be an issue at all.

As for the designers of these cart-ball courses, it is not an issue of blame, but I sure as heck am not going to celebrate their work either.   In the long run designing for the Golf Cart Experience is bad for course design and ultimately bad for golf.    And the "realities of the profession" excuse is overplayed.  After all, isn't their "profession" the same as the profession of those who go out of their way to make their courses reasonably walkable?  And when a site is potentially walkable, what "reality of the profession" keeps these guys from making it so?   Perhaps instead of just bowing to the market, they should nudge golf in a more sustainable direction.

Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #110 on: September 14, 2009, 10:19:29 PM »
Pat

The Met?  How many clubs are in the Met? 

Approximately 403.



Ciao
[/quote]

Only because I thought the MET and my state golf association had similiar numbers did I bother to check the MET website.  I counted around 275 member clubs of the MET but I understand your point--275 or so member clubs is huge and a greater number than most states in general.

Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #111 on: September 14, 2009, 10:44:19 PM »
This is a valuable thread. I appreciate the walking only nazis identifying themselves in case I have guests at WBCC or end up at a GCA event somewhere.

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #112 on: September 14, 2009, 10:59:23 PM »
David, I understand, but here in the Mountain Time Zone, there are a lot of courses built on very hilly land. Engh can be castigated for some of his work, in your opinion, but sometimes building a walkable course is very difficult on some of this terrain. One could say that "that isn't land for golf, and a course shouldn't be built there," but that's easy to say when you don't rely on such courses to have a round here and there.

After all, we're NOT communists. If the market is supporting these courses, then.........someone must be willing and wanting to play them. I'm sorry if that offends anyone's sensibilities.

At the same time, let's celebrate the walking only courses we have, and hope that all of the folks who talk the talk regarding this subject end up walking the walk !
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #113 on: September 15, 2009, 01:33:46 AM »
Kirk,

Are you deliberately missing the point?  So far as I'm aware, no-one has suggested that all courses should be walking only and certainly no=one has suggested that any course that is not suitable for walking should be walking only.  The question is whether it is right for some (walking friendly) courses to be walking only.  As several posters have mentioned this is a prticularly American question since most traditional courses in the UK and many other countries are walking only but will allow cart use with a medical certificate.

Pat Mucci, I think, suggested that there might be a sensitivity to provbiding "medical details".  So far as I'm aware that isn't an issue over here.  Certainly the cart users at my club (mostly elderly) don't seem to have an issue with proving to the club that they have a legitimate need for a cart.

As for the rest, David Moriarty has said it better than I can, on this issue at least.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #114 on: September 15, 2009, 02:03:31 AM »
.

« Last Edit: September 15, 2009, 11:57:17 AM by Rob Rigg »

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #115 on: September 15, 2009, 08:10:51 AM »
Mark, I hope I'm not missing the point.

I don't disagree at all with anything you said in your post. It is CERTAINLY fine for any course to be walking-only, if that's what the folks that run it decide to do. How could it be wrong? It's the way golf ought to be played. I don't see where I've said anything different on this thread.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #116 on: September 15, 2009, 08:56:21 AM »
Pat

The Met?  How many clubs are in the Met? 

Approximately 403.



Ciao

Only because I thought the MET and my state golf association had similiar numbers did I bother to check the MET website.  I counted around 275 member clubs of the MET but I understand your point--275 or so member clubs is huge and a greater number than most states in general.
[/quote]

Chris,

Amongst many things the MET MGA does is publish a booklet entitled, "Directions to MEMBER Clubs"

That directory has 403 clubs listed.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #117 on: September 15, 2009, 09:27:41 AM »

Kirk

Being one of the loudest critics of carts and their more destructive vile offspring the cart paths, I must congratulate David for two excellent articles.

The Game of Golf is not all about changing it because some don’t like certain bit. Nor of destroying its very reason for being because some want to build courses on ‘Land not fit for Purpose’ or in regions certainly not naturally suitable for the game. Nevertheless, the Human Spirit strives to conquer all adversities, well that was true to just recently.

What did we do to attract people to play golf in the latter part of the 20th century? Did we promote the health benefits, the walking of 6,000 yards, of being out in the open de-stressing as we walk, (different pressures have been proven to de-stress the human mind and body). Not to mention the clean air and rays that our bodies also need. No, but to use the term that Kirk seems to like, some ‘asshole’ decides that carts are the way forward, it destroyed at a stroke all benefits of playing golf in the traditional manner. The game changed overnight, no longer worried about fatigue setting in after the first 9 or so holes, young health golfers take to the EASY Way, and not just using the cart for golf but for racing, carry beverages and being a general nuisance on a course.

The pro carts lobby shouts from their Ivory Towers that it’s allowed golf to be played in areas not suitable for golf. Yet in their defence, they do not know the history of the game and forget that their forefathers (well mainly those associated with the British Empire) and with a trace of being Scottish, took golf to the far reaches of the old Empire. Playing Golf in Australia, in the various condition of the Indian sub-continent. Africa and South America, I have posted newspaper reports on GCA.com of golf in various parts of the world dating from the 1800’s. My own family helped to introduce the game to Georgia and Alabama in the late 1870s/80’s. The game was played for well over a century in most of these areas before the cart’s arrival. Therefore, the argument about ‘we need carts to play golf in these regions of the world’ falls on stony ground as far as I am concerned. Its seems that we are today much softer than our forefathers, unable to exert ourselves as they did, perhaps it is just down to seeking the easy option and developers could see that, or could see the opportunity for an easy profit at the expense of golf.

I have played golf in the heart of Africa, Brazil, India and many more places besides, all walking, all carrying my bag. Was it hot, boy, was it hot and exhausting at time. The courses had approx. one or two grass strand found in a square yard of red soil, crushed termite mounds some 2 – 3 yards high as Tees with mats on top, Greens of compacted soil in the colour of the area we played in, some nearly blood red, some terracotta and some just light sandy colour. On these courses you did not want to pitch your ball on one of the isolated tufts (by tufts I mean two or three strands) as it could veer of in any direction. On many occasions, I dreamed of TOC, of watching my ball run true and straight over the contours for the pin, yet knowing that at any moment it may find a tuft and be diverted, Heaven knows where. No Carts, no need of carts, a course scarred by nearly everything Nature could throw at it, yet not scarred or destroyed by cart paths. When sitting back at the clubhouse with a cold beer, reminiscing on our little adventure, we would all have had it no other way, we enjoyed our Game of Golf as its was meant to be (that’s not to say we were not looking forward to a game on TOC, far from it).
Man against himself and the land.

With my long family association with golf, playing golf myself, tried the carts on a few occasions, but realising it is just not golf. The thought of playing with half riding(able bodied) and half-walking group is just a simple no for me. The cart rider is fresher than the walker, as he has put nothing into his game, he has opted for the easy option, yet experience very little compared to a walker. To finish a game after riding 18 holes in a carts presents this golfer with no satisfaction, no feeling of de-stressing, no relaxed and contented feeling in the bars afterwards, I feel cheated of emotion of participation, I feel like someone on the sidelines looking in. That was my experience of using a cart in the 1980’s. I just do not understand how modern golfers can say they are playing golf, which was not my experience from using carts. Yes, I was hitting a golf ball from time to time and then putting, but I found it hard to justify it as a game of golf.     

Today with my lower back problems plus one or two other ailments, that affects my fitness regime. I can’t go walk more that 100-200 yards without , a rest or support for my back, when shopping I have to use the shopping trolley to ease my pain, yet I love the outdoors, I spend as much time as possible, however I cannot play, worst still I can not walk the courses. When in St Andrews, I cannot wander over TOC as I once did. The best is a game of putting but manly on a flat surface. I feel I would make me a prime candidate for riding a cart, yet as many of you know, I am against carts (except for medical reasons for those who want to use them). I will not use a cart to play, because its not the type of Golf I want to play, I never enjoyed my few carting rounds in the 1980’s and I will not compromise all those great years and fun of playing golf all over the world, for a game that is just a shadow of the real thing.

It is all about ‘Land fit for Purpose’ and the ‘Human Spirit’ to rise to the challenge. It is not about the shortcuts, the easy ways, the easy life. That you can have at home, some are more forced to accept that situation than others. So if healthy, ‘Walk with Life’ while you can, because carting is just a very, very poor relation of golf.

Kirk, not liking carts or carting, nor does wanting the No Walking courses banned make me or anyone else an ‘arsehole’ (if I have understood your post correctly). Yet I can’t say it reflect upon those using a cart either, they just miss the real enjoyment of the Walking Game, which in my book is the only way to play Golf. Carts have no place on a golf course unless it is to aid the disabled which I suppose currently includes me, and I don't want the use of one.

Melvyn



Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #118 on: September 15, 2009, 10:19:58 AM »
Melvyn, David, anyone who cares -

My apologies for the "a-hole" comment. It was, in fact, directed at people who smugly dismiss those who have walking issues with a comment like "get off your fat lazy butt and go walk." I've tried to be clear that I am a guy who prefers to walk, who has always walked, but has in the last few years had some issues walking. I tried to be clear in saying that I would never ask for a medical or any other "free pass" to take a cart on a course where such things are required. At the same time, I have expressed an opinion with which, Melvyn, you would likely disagree - and that is that I won't dismiss courses or architects because they rely on carts, as I believe that they're just giving people what they want, and what the market will bear. Vile pandering? Perhaps. But if one disagrees with their methods or their results, the best and easiest criticism is to allow ones money to do the talking.....elsewhere.

Question - are there courses struggling because they are basically cart-only? Are there courses struggling because they are walking only? I'm not talking about the way things should be, I'm asking how they are.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #119 on: September 15, 2009, 10:21:19 AM »
David, I understand, but here in the Mountain Time Zone, there are a lot of courses built on very hilly land. Engh can be castigated for some of his work, in your opinion, but sometimes building a walkable course is very difficult on some of this terrain. One could say that "that isn't land for golf, and a course shouldn't be built there," but that's easy to say when you don't rely on such courses to have a round here and there.
...


Kirk,

Perhaps you missed this thread.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41300.0/

You won't find many courses in the Rocky Mountain west built on more severe sites than Indian Canyon, but yet it turned out as eminently walkable. Besides that it is undoubtedly a better course than many cart ball courses in the Rocky Mountain west.

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #120 on: September 15, 2009, 11:19:53 AM »
This is a valuable thread. I appreciate the walking only nazis identifying themselves in case I have guests at WBCC or end up at a GCA event somewhere.

Really Mike, nazis, worst word choice to use on a thread . . . ever.



Not to mention the implication of exclusion and ostracization.
Somehow I suspect the "nazis" Mike refers to would be happy to play golf with Tommy N, or have him as a guest, but Mike would go a different way.
I guess if the shoe fits, wear it.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #121 on: September 15, 2009, 12:55:47 PM »
I think the issue Kirk was trying to bring up is one of exclusion.

When having a cart-only course, which for the record I don't agree with, no one is excluded.  Sure it may not be your preference to ride, but you aren't excluded from still playing the course if you wish.

The opposite is however true for walking-only courses.  For those who can't walk 18 holes and be on thier feet 4 hours straight, for whatever the reason, they are being excluded from playing that course.

This is the issue, exclusion vs non-exclusion....

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #122 on: September 15, 2009, 01:08:12 PM »
Melvyn,

We are doing our best to educate the golfing public and the youth in the US about where they can find great walking courses and the benefits of playing the game as intended.

It will always be an uphill battle in the US but this is a fight worth fighting without a doubt.

http://www.thewalkinggolfer.com/TWG_Walkability_Ratings.html

Kalen,

What about private courses versus public courses?

The public is excluded because they do not have the cash or the credentials to join a private club. There are many private clubs in the country. Should there not be any private clubs?

Golf is a walking game, that was available to the public to play regardless of wealth or occupation.

Why is it that people complain about walking only courses but do not complain about being locked out of private clubs? There are many more of those than walking courses.

I do not have a problem at all with private clubs, although it is sad that many gems are locked away from those who would love to play and appreciate them, but I do think that it is strange people complain about the small number of walking only courses in the country (that do provide medical exemptions) as being non-inclusive when that is rarely the case.

Furthermore, cart only courses are not "all inclusive" for walking golfers because you cannot play the game as intended and are asked to fork over cash for "cart golf" which is not golf.

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #123 on: September 15, 2009, 01:08:26 PM »
This is the issue, exclusion vs non-exclusion....

Kalen, for a sport where the vast majority of its finest courses do not welcome the public, exclusion vs non-exclusion horse left the barn a long time ago.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Walking Only: What SHOULD the policy be?
« Reply #124 on: September 15, 2009, 01:10:20 PM »
Rob,

Private courses are obviously free to implement whatever policies they wish, that is part of what makes them private.

My last post was directed at publicly accessible courses.

P.S.  I did also say I don't agree with public cart-only courses....and safe to say I also don't agree with public walking-only courses as well
« Last Edit: September 15, 2009, 01:12:10 PM by Kalen Braley »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back