....so much fuss over concrete...

[DMoriarty]

Honestly though, Jim Engh is not the Led Zeppelin of Golf Course Design. That title most assuredly belongs to Max Behr. (Perhaps more accurately Led Zeppelin is the Max Behr of Rock and Roll.)  You see, you don't get to that level of notoriety without making some bad decisions, drinking too much, and throwing some punches in anger.

Mr. Engh seems to be too much of a gentleman for that.

With all due respect to Mr. Engh, Mr. Behr, and Mr. Zeppelin (may I call you Led?) Jay's cart ride video brought this to mind and I cannot shake it.  To the tune of Stairway to Heaven (in case you can't figure it out.)

There's a Flemma who's sure
All Engh's cartball is gold
And he’s riding a cartpath to heaven.
But when Engh builds there he knows
that the holes aren’t very close
with a cart he can get what he came for.
Ooh, ooh, and he's riding the cartpath to heaven.

There's a tee on a hill
But he wants to be sure
'Cause you know these paths can get confusing.
Zoom past the closer ground
To find another thrill,
walking golf just isn’t as exciting.
Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it makes me wonder.

There's a feeling I get
When I look to the West,
Ol’ Tom’s soul is shrieking at Cartball.
In our thoughts we have seen
Miles of cartpaths through the trees
And long trips from every green,
Trading subtlety for views from each tee.
Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it really makes me wonder.

. . .
(skipped a few verses and solos, to up-tempo crescendo)

And as he rides on down the road
“It’s easy walking” we’ve been told
But Engh tells us what we know
Jay writes his white lies to show
He can turn cartball into gold.
Then Jon said click the link below
Youtube will come to you at last.
With carts for one and carts for all
Jay says he walked but then he rolls

And he’s riding a cartpath to heaven.

[Matt Day]

quality work Mr Moriarty..but now I've got Stairway to Heaven stuck as a background tune in brain 

[paul cowley]

....not sure why I am back here, but it probably has to do with a person I respect a lot...Peter Pallotta...who has indicated he is gone as a result of this thread. A real loss.

Melvyn's game evolved hundreds of years ago in a terrain and climate that was suited for its development...lets call it British Isles Golf.

Enter an attempt to recreate the same in North America...in an entirely different terrain and climate, and we have what has evolved into a different game....lets call it American Golf.

At first Americans built golf courses on land that was fairly easy to build on.

Later they built courses on land where they liked to live and spend time.....lakes, mountains, deserts etc,...and they developed a means to allow them to do so on these challenging terrains.....enter paved cart paths and golf carts.

These two forms of golf are apples and oranges....as is this debate.

[DMoriarty]

Matt,

My goal in writing it out was to get it out of my head.  Better in your head than mine.   
David.

_____________________________________

....not sure why I am back here, but it probably has to do with a person I respect a lot...Peter Pallotta...who has indicated he is gone as a result of this thread. A real loss.

Melvyn's game evolved hundreds of years ago in a terrain and climate that was suited for its development...lets call it British Isles Golf.

Enter an attempt to recreate the same in North America...in an entirely different terrain and climate, and we have what has evolved into a different game....lets call it American Golf.

At first Americans built golf courses on land that was fairly easy to build on.

Later they built courses on land where they liked to live and spend time on...lakes, mountains, deserts etc,...and they developed a means to allow them to do so on these challenging terrains.....enter paved cart paths and golf carts.

These two forms of golf are apples and oranges....as is this debate.

Paul,  I understand what you are saying and appreciate your take on the matter.  But like with Anthony's point above I don't think we are on the same page.    Most of the discussion has focused on courses built on land that could be used for a walking course, but is instead used for courses that don't reasonably allow for walking.   So it is not a matter of necessity (because of the severity of the land) but a matter of choice. 

[Rob Rigg]

Paul,

I agree with your categorization of 1) British Isles Golf/Mostly Early American Golf on great sites that are easily walkable, and 2) Cart Golf courses that are built on severe terrain where Americans like to vacation or on flat/severe terrain where there is a RE development that forces an architect to route across roads, etc.

But is there not a third terrain that in Jim Engh's words is "50/50" - a site that could yield a walkable course if the developer and architect were to go that route?

- RCCC, Bandon Trails, Tobacco Road, are just three examples of this type of terrain.

On terrain that is potentially walkable, is it always better for an architect to build a "cart golf" course instead of a "walking optional" course?

Will "cart golf" courses really yield a better golfing experience?

I just do not see the evidence, but it certainly may exist.

From the beginning of the debate on this thread, I think that both DM and I have been advocating for "golfer's choice" as the best way to design a course on these 50/50 walkable sites. Let people walk if they want or ride if they want, it is totally up to them, but at least give the golfer a choice because no one has presented evidence that a "carts only" course is going to be significantly better than a walkable one.

[paul cowley]

David....if that is the debate here....then I can assure you that most GC Architects would always prefer designing a course that is walkable.....if the terrain allows for it

[Anthony Gray]

Bandon Trails is a perfect example of a site that could have been turned into cart golf (in theory - obviously Mr Keiser wanted a walking only course).

Instead, Bill Coore took a ton of time to walk the property and develop a fantastic routing that is walkable (yes, there is a long walk between the 13th Green and 14th Tee if the shuttle is not there).

Anthony,

Do you think that Bandon Trails would be the course it is if it had been designed for carts? Would the transition from dunes to meadows to forest appear so seamless? Would an architect have taken such care in ensuring that transition? Would the architect have routed more up and down the hills to maximize views instead of along them?

If carts were allowed at BT I am sure that MANY golfers would take them - I think it is good if golfers have a choice and Trails is not the easiest walk in the world - BUT, because it is walkable, golfers can choose to walk the course and experience the routing as the architect intended.

This is the 50/50 question back to Jim Engh - If a course could be laid out that is walkable, on a site with some elevation change and/or hills, does "cart golf" really lead to a better course? Are there any examples of this?

  Rob,

   I think the question of if a course should be walking only,cart only, or a choice lies in your target audience and the land the course is on. Bandon was specifically built with walking golfers in mind. The courses at The Villages were built for old people that need carts. It is nice to see that designers can build both kinds of courses so the masses can enjoy the game of golf. Would cart paths deminish the courses at Bandon? Without a doubt. But there are a lot more residential courses out there than there are Bandons. You just cannot apply the same reasoning to two totally different situations.

  Anthony

[Anthony Gray]

 David,

  I think comparing Scotish/links courses to American courses is a little unfair. Respectfully the golf cultures are simply worlds apart. What is acceptable in one country is taboo in another. In the US we are lazier, more obese, have land where there are greater distances between holes as compare to our UK brethren. It just makes since to give people what they want/need. And What golfers want/need in the US and UK is very different. And savy architects realize this.

  Anthony

I don't get it.   The people that want/need to ride can ride.   But why would they want/need everyone else to ride as well?   I am NOT talking about walking only courses.  I am talking about riding only courses.   What possible justification is there for leaving the walkers out when the land allows for walking?  

Plus, when it comes to figuring out truly excellent golf course design I don't know that I am willing to accept that we ought to be singing the praises of those who design for what you describe as "lazy and obese," and exclude those who aren't.   Mcdonald's gives the "lazy and obese" what they want.  So should we consider it to be among our finest dining establishments?

Anyway, I am sure that the American designers and builders would appreciate you considering Castle Stewart so Scottish.   Not sure if you put it together, but the other designers were the same as designed and built Rustic Canyon (with Geoff Shackelford.)   It is a modern American course that is very walkable.   Did Gil, Jim, and Jeff miss the boat?   Why should they have included walking if most will ride?   Just think they could have plastered elevated tees up and down the canyon walls to bring in more spectacular shots.  Would it have been a better course if they had?

Castle Stewart didn't have to be a typical walking course.   Isn't their target customer the vacationing golfer?  So why worry about what the locals want?   Would it have been a better course if built for carts only?

  David,

  One question at a time please you know how my mind works.

  I agree that if people want to walk they should be allowed to. That makes perfect sense. I think some places can get more players on the course and thus have more profit by not having walkers slow down the pace of play ie Sawgrass or Harbor Town. Two that can easily be walked.

  I agree walking courses have a better feel and aesthetically look better. Which should make them rank higher architecturally.

  As far as Castle Stuart. The target audience is the walking golfer. At Rustic Canyon the target audience is anyone who will pay. Two totally different cultures and golf IQ's of the typical person that plays these two courses. Same designer but different cultures.

  The locals at Castle Stuart want the same thing as the vacationing golfer...a walking course.

  At Rustic Canyon we talked about why they did not put elevated tees up on the canyon. I think it would have been better for shot value and to take advantage of the view. I forget why it was not done. Do you remember?

  Respectfully,

  Anthony

[A.G._Crockett]

Matt,

My goal in writing it out was to get it out of my head.  Better in your head than mine.  
David.

_____________________________________

....not sure why I am back here, but it probably has to do with a person I respect a lot...Peter Pallotta...who has indicated he is gone as a result of this thread. A real loss.

Melvyn's game evolved hundreds of years ago in a terrain and climate that was suited for its development...lets call it British Isles Golf.

Enter an attempt to recreate the same in North America...in an entirely different terrain and climate, and we have what has evolved into a different game....lets call it American Golf.

At first Americans built golf courses on land that was fairly easy to build on.

Later they built courses on land where they liked to live and spend time on...lakes, mountains, deserts etc,...and they developed a means to allow them to do so on these challenging terrains.....enter paved cart paths and golf carts.

These two forms of golf are apples and oranges....as is this debate.

Paul,  I understand what you are saying and appreciate your take on the matter.  But like with Anthony's point above I don't think we are on the same page.    Most of the discussion has focused on courses built on land that could be used for a walking course, but is instead used for courses that don't reasonably allow for walking.   So it is not a matter of necessity (because of the severity of the land) but a matter of choice.  

David,
I would respectfully disagree about what "most of the discussion has focused on" during this thread.  This thread comes down to two things.

One is what Jim Engh meant by "moderate land" in the first post, and what should be done with it when building a golf course.  I took that to mean land where walking would be, at best, challenging, and where few would choose to walk even if the course was constructed that way.  Others, and I think you are in this camp, seemed to view the word "moderate" as land where walking would be more of a 50-50 proposition.  Unfortunately, Mr. Engh has never returned to clear that up, and I can't really blame him.

The second theme, however, has been a steadfast refusal by two individuals to accept that, for a variety of reason, carts are part of the world of golf today, EVER! This includes such inanities as whether or not riding in a cart is even golf, whether or not there is ever any reason for a player to ride, whether or not a player should give up the game if they can't walk, and the demonization of ANY GCA that builds a course that is essentially unwalkable, or even difficult.  This has been the unfortunate part of the thread, and I don't see it stopping.

I'll give you and others credit for at least attempting to keep the discussion on point.  But I think you are fighting a losing battle.  You might as well try to teach calculus to poorly behaved first graders.

[Jay Flemma]

So we've lost Peter Pallotta and Jim Engh all because of David M...that's a sad loss for the site.

Guys, just ignore him.  One of these days, that kid will grow up.

[Melvyn Morrow]

AC

Having already mentioned you will not respond to any of my posts, I however have no problem on that front and am happy to express my own opinion.

I respect your opinion even thought I don’t agree, but I don’t call it trip, that just goes to show all, the tolerance you have for the opinions of others.

This is no longer about carts or no carts but the right to voice ones opinion on this site. Mr. Crockett you are wrong and out of order, by all means disagree we me, and others, but tring to intimidate others by trashing their views and comments is not what this site, I believe is all about.

Golf is based upon walking, even those on carts have to get off their backside and walk to the ball and around the Greens, without walking there would be no golf. I say that carts are just another aid for golfers who can’t be bothered, many for no reason other that they are just plain lazy and can’t be bothered walking,.

Then we have courses built in unsuitable locations, suggesting that carts are the only way to play, yet go to Africa, India  and many other places where the game has been played for centuries and you will find hot humid golf without carts. Why are these golfers not using carts, why are they walking, perhaps its just down to understand the game. They don’t agree with changing the game to make their life easy, they play the game. No challenge, no point in the game, why let a cart do the walking, why lets distance aids, markers, books or electronic gadgets do it all for you, where is the commitment, the challenge, ops sorry, walking from the car to the carts and back after the round, I suppose constitutes commitment these days.    

Its not golf as it has been played for centuries. Carts, I believe have only been around since the early 1950’s approx 50 years, fine for those who medically need them.

I have no problem with Cart Golf or Cart Balling or whatever it is called. Just don’t call it golf.

Melvyn

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jay

I have no intention in taking sides but are your comments constructive?

I have, I expect more on GCA.com who certainly do not like me or should I say my Tone and have voiced it on screen, by IM or E-mail. Yet, I am also fortunate that many have to my surprise supported my stance some with the proviso that they would not put it as strongly as I do.

This is a Discussion Group where we all have a right to honest and sincere views and opinions, be they shared or not. We learn from others, even if we tend not to admit it at the time.  Many in good faith put forward thoughts, ideas and views and those should be developed if others are interested, if not the topic quickly falls down the list.

Frustration can set in and quick reactions are not always wise, I know to my own cost, but the Discussion Group and all the individuals have a right to their views, even if we believe them to be wrong. Many will react to our response so we need to be careful (within reason) otherwise we find ourselves in ever decreasing circles leading to nowhere.

I cannot tell you what to do, that is totally down to you.

Melvyn

[PThomas]

Paul C and Peter and Jim E, pls dont leave because of others opinions!

[Jay Flemma]

The problem is that some people take delight in character assassination for whatever petty reason, even if they have to spread a lie to do it.  David is the common theme on every excreble thread on GCA.com these days, and worst of all, he likes that.

[PThomas]

well something has to give Jay, at least IMHO, because i am getting so tired of people arguing back and forth, repeating there same position over and over and over, etc.................

good God, there's a lot of bigger things to worry about in the world

[Adam Clayman]

I think some places can get more players on the course and thus have more profit by not having walkers slow down the pace of play ie Sawgrass or Harbor Town. Two that can easily be walked.
  Anthony

Perpetuating the myth that riders play faster than walkers is inexcusable.

[Bill_McBride]

I think some places can get more players on the course and thus have more profit by not having walkers slow down the pace of play ie Sawgrass or Harbor Town. Two that can easily be walked.
  Anthony

Perpetuating the myth that riders play faster than walkers is inexcusable.

Agreed 100%.    The pace is the same, the flow is quite different.  It's aggravating when you are a walking group and the riding group behind you hits tee shots when you are clear, then race down to their tee balls and sit there looking put out by the "delay."  After the round is over they give you the eyeball in the grill seeming to imply you held them up.

[Lou_Duran]

I think some places can get more players on the course and thus have more profit by not having walkers slow down the pace of play ie Sawgrass or Harbor Town. Two that can easily be walked.
  Anthony

Perpetuating the myth that riders play faster than walkers is inexcusable.

Come on Adam.  There are much better, factual arguments for walking vs. riding.  Speed of play is not one of them.   Unless you are positing that the individual who chooses to ride is inherently slower or a much poorer golfer than one who hoofs it, your suggestion can't hold water.  In my nearly 40 years in the game playing probably close to 4,000 rounds all over the U.S., I have found ZERO evidence to support your position.

Jay,

You are out of line on this one.  Dr. Moriarty makes a reasonable argument.  Though I generally support Mr. Engh's position- that he would rather build a better course by utilizing superior site characteristics accessible primarily by carts rather than settling for a lesser course that 50% or fewer golfers would walk anyways- others may not agree for very good reasons.  More like Mr. Keiser should put their money behind their mouth. 

As to Peter, Paul, and MCirba (I could have gone Moriarty and said Mary, followed with modified lyrics of "Leaving On A Jet Plane" but I am not that witty), et. al. leaving the site because of inane arguments, that is a pity.  To the extent this site is helpful and enjoyable, wouldn't it make more sense to just ignore objectionable subjects and/or people rather than try to thwart open dialogue?  It would be great if we all could set our ego aside and write "thoughtfully", honestly, and clearly.  Alas, this is not the nature of the beast.       

[Adam Clayman]

Come on Adam.  There are much better, factual arguments for walking vs. riding.  Speed of play is not one of them.   Unless you are positing that the individual who chooses to ride is inherently slower or a much poorer golfer than one who hoofs it, your suggestion can't hold water.  In my nearly 40 years in the game playing probably close to 4,000 rounds all over the U.S., I have found ZERO evidence to support your position.

 

Well Lucky Lou,

The typical American that plays golf, rides in a cart, does not know proper etiquette, and, is not considerate of others, is WAY slower than a golfer walking.

You surely have been lucky if you have not seen this in action. It is the norm, whether you have seen it or not.

[Lou_Duran]

So, you are arguing that the rider is an inferior or uncaring golfer.  Make him walk and see what happens.  Do you think because he now walks he is a different golfer?  I've played with many SLOW, uncaring walkers.  I was even tasked at one of our unofficial GCA.com outings to pull one of these fellows aside and try to talk some sense into him (I am told that my efforts were for naught).  I know that I can ride a whole lot faster than I can walk.  I suspect that you know you can as well.

The slowest courses I've played, primarily in SoCal and OSU's Scarlet are/were primarily walking courses.  Too bad we didn't play Great Southwest during your visit to TX a few years back.  You, me, and a third walking without delay would likely have had to allow a riding fivesome or two playing $$$ wolf to play through.

[Sean_A]

I think some places can get more players on the course and thus have more profit by not having walkers slow down the pace of play ie Sawgrass or Harbor Town. Two that can easily be walked.
  Anthony

Perpetuating the myth that riders play faster than walkers is inexcusable.

Come on Adam.  There are much better, factual arguments for walking vs. riding.  Speed of play is not one of them.   Unless you are positing that the individual who chooses to ride is inherently slower or a much poorer golfer than one who hoofs it, your suggestion can't hold water.  In my nearly 40 years in the game playing probably close to 4,000 rounds all over the U.S., I have found ZERO evidence to support your position.

Jay,

You are out of line on this one.  Dr. Moriarty makes a reasonable argument.  Though I generally support Mr. Engh's position- that he would rather build a better course by utilizing superior site characteristics accessible primarily by carts rather than settling for a lesser course that 50% or fewer golfers would walk anyways- others may not agree for very good reasons.  More like Mr. Keiser should put their money behind their mouth. 

As to Peter, Paul, and MCirba (I could have gone Moriarty and said Mary, followed with modified lyrics of "Leaving On A Jet Plane" but I am not that witty), et. al. leaving the site because of inane arguments, that is a pity.  To the extent this site is helpful and enjoyable, wouldn't it make more sense to just ignore objectionable subjects and/or people rather than try to thwart open dialogue?  It would be great if we all could set our ego aside and write "thoughtfully", honestly, and clearly.  Alas, this is not the nature of the beast.       

Lou

Hmmm, I would only agree with you if the course is near empty.  With nobody in front, sure I can play faster in a cart, but what is the point unless its down to a crappy walking course?  If the course is crowded, carts do absolutely no good to speed up play.  How else does one explain 5 hour games where carts are prevalent?  Is it all down to walkers? 

BTW I agree with AG.  I think Engh did have "moderate" in mind to mean that iffy terrain which most people probably wouldn't walk anyway so the archie may as well use all the best characteristics of the terrain which can be accessed via cart. This seems like a reasonable approach to me, but its easy for me to say because I am not the target market as I play very few cart courses.  Indeed, I play so few that I think my tolerance for walking courses like Tobacco Road is very low even though it isn't a particularly hilly walk and nowhere near the sort of terrain I think Engh is referring to as "moderate". 

Ciao 

[Jud_T]

The real question should be "Do the chinese prefer to ride or walk" because the number of new courses built on good bad or indifferent terrain in the U.S. or the U.K., Sir Trump notwithstanding, in the next 5 years is going to be next to nil...

[Adam Clayman]

Lou, I would argue that the majority of people who play golf in America are not considerate of others. Since the numbers shake out to 85% ride, you do the math.

It does boil down to consideration of others. There's an art to playing golf in a timely manner. It's a pity not one of the associations who treat this sport as an industry make any attempt to teach that art.

[Bill_McBride]

I hate to see this wonderful, caring thread    "degenerate" into a walkers vs riders OT tangent, but I think Adam and Lou are not that far apart.

If a golf course is empty and four good golfers play, the cart riders will go faster.

If there are 8 or 10 minute intervals on a course full of golfers, walkers and riders will play at the same pace - but the flow will be different as I mentioned above.  Hurry up and wait for the riders, stroll for the walkers.  I prefer the latter unless it's not feasible due to heat, humidity, distance or elevation changes.

[Garland Bayley]

I think there is no need to argue slowness between walkers and riders. Some people play slow! It is an attribute of the person, not of the method of conveyance.

Any quick walkers can make carters look and feel slow by quickly getting to their approach shots and stand over them looking perturbed while taking multiple practice swings while the carters ahead are putting out.
As has pointed out above carters can make walkers feel slow by dashing up to their drives and waiting on the walkers.

Anthony is an especially fast carter, because he doesn't bother to putt out. Playing with him is watching ADHD (aka ADD) in action.