Patrick
I would refer you to my post #106 from yesterday. I understand pain way more than you may think. I also understand the strength and pull of golf as much as the next golfer, perhaps more so.
Melvyn
Back to Jims post and my original post on his subject in which I asked a question or two, but never answered by Jim. Instead of some being so full of themselves on a DG site, perhaps they should ask what is the point of someone posting a topic then not bothering to input again on that topic when questions are asked or bound to be asked.
Too many, to ride or walk is of no importance to them, they just play and enjoy the experience. Others for a variety of reasons dislike the cart, some bother to put forward very valid, deeply sincere and honest opinions on that subject to the Discussion Group. Yet with limited Membership of 1500, the GCA.com Discussion Group has well known names submitting topics and comments for what I would have thought have been the purpose of discussion.
ALL MEMBERS HAVE A RIGHT TO AN OPINION AND THANKS TO RAN & BEN, THE FACILITY TO VOICE SAID OPINIONS. It is meant to be a discussion group, so expect discussions. Stay and get involved, however if strongly and unfairly verbally attacked or the victim of unpleasantness (not just a disagreement) then I fully sympathize and you should do what you believe you must.
As for trying to build courses in lets just call it Land Not Fit For Purpose which from the initial concept required carts (perhaps for the long treks between Greens & Tees), expect some reaction if it is still going to be sold as a Golf Course. Golf was never about long walks or certainly not long rides between Greens and the next Tee. Originally, the Tees & Greens were on top of each other.
If the designers and developers of these projects want them to be golf courses how can that be if they make statements as Jim did and I highlighted it in my reply#34
The good news is, if it is possible it will be very spectacular. When dealing with moderate land upon which it might be "possible" to create a walking course, I have the following decision; should I create a course that is very much less exciting/fun but is potentially walkable for 50% of the players? Or should I decide that this will be a mostly cart course and create a much more powerful golfing experience and sales engine for thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.
IMHO and according to Garland the USGA also do not consider this type of game, Golf. I still do not understand that if forgetting carts acting as ones legs how can the game itself offer a very much less exciting/fun but is potentially walkable for 50% of the players? Or should I decide that this will be a mostly cart course and create a much more powerful golfing experience. Do these courses not have the same Tees, Fairways, Greens be it for walking or carts. Is the powerful experience down to just the views plus the challenge of driving/riding between holes? If so Jims statement is totally misleading as being generated by the trek between Greens & Tees and not the playability of the course design. IMHO, I believe my post #34 was a fair request for information and understanding of Cart Balling. However, it was blown out of all proportion by singular minded individuals. Things never seem to change, do they?
Melvyn