Why can't we have it both ways? Great walking courses and great courses that may require a cart. I don't have a problem with that. I walk and carry at my home course, but have no problem enjoying a round at one of Mr Engh's courses in a cart. It ain't that difficult to have fun. Some of you guys think waaaaaaay too much.
We can enjoy both types of courses, or at least those who are willing to play from a cart can. But I don't accept the notion that making a course walkable means we have to sacrifice superior golf. I don't think superior golf was sacrificed at the courses I listed above, but maybe I am wrong, and others can tell me where they could have been improved by going to cartball. Also there are other things at issue here besides just whether we might enjoy a round on a cartball course, but maybe that is best left for a different thread.
____________________________________________
_
David,
I agree with you. I shudder to think what Ballyneal might look like w/ cart paths and longer green to tee transitions. You could probably have a lot of holes like #4 just because you could just drive to the top of the nearest dune. I believe one of the earlier iterations of the 6th had the tee up on top of dune to the south of the existing tee box. It would probably be one of the most photographed holes on the course from up there, but Doak ultimately decided against the uphill climb.
Sand Hills had 130 potential holes and with lots of land to work, I'm sure the ultimate routing would've been different if green-to-tee wasn't a factor. And that's with a course that has carts. Seems like C&C struck the right balance there.
130 potential holes at Sand Hills? So I guess my 14 billion number was a bit high. Still though, there had to be some pretty dramatic holes that they passed up to make the course walkable.
Ballyneal and Sand Hills are both very good examples, because neither one of them are easy sites or easy walks. Yet both of them are a pleasures to walk. For me Sand Hills was definitely a bit more difficult and I understand why they have carts, but in my opinion it would be a much lesser course if they stretched it out into a cartball course. As for Ballyneal, I found it to be an extraordinary walk; it looked difficult, but somehow even with all the movement in the ground it just pulls you through. Maybe its the excitement of seeing what is over the next dune, or maybe the shape of the dunes create the illusion of more elevation change than exists, or it is the brilliant transitions between holes, but whatever it is the walk turns out to be quite pleasurable and not taxing at all.
___________________________________
Jim and Adam,
I really liked the 6th at Ballyneal the way it is, especially the tee shot, and I am glad they didn't force the golfers up the hill. What a refreshing change from what one usually finds. That tee would not exist on a cart ball course because the temptation to do something spectacular or inspiring would be impossible to resist. But the course
as a whole doesn't depend upon just another spectacular tee shot to make it inspiring, especially if that means trudging (or driving) uphill well away from the last hole for yet another spectacular view. It would feel completely out of place and interrupt what seems to me to be a terrific flow. And if you do it at the 6th, then just imagine how many other places you could do it out there. Even I might have been able to find a few spectacular holes out there.
For those who haven't played it, here is the mundane tee shot that the golfer faces on the 6th at Ballyneal, from Ran's review. No offense to Ran but the photo does not do the tee shot justice, so I have included his photo caption as well.
"6th hole, 480 yards; The tee area is below the level of the fairway, leaving an appealingly blind tee ball over the brow of a ridge to a wide fairway. Far too many modern architects build elevated tees ad nauseam with the effect of giving the holes a similar perspective, thus unintentionally rendering the holes less distinctive from one another. One of the great surprises of the course occurs farther ahead at the green, which features very bold interior contours, a rarity for a hole of such length."
__________________________________________
. . .
Let's first discuss the definition of walkability. To me for the most part, if you can play reasonable golf on the land, that part of the course is walkable. Therefore, the biggest issue becomes the green to tee walk. . . .
I get what you are saying but disagree somewhat. Sometimes these designers are creating impassable obstacle after impassable obstacle and the walker must navigate around them just to get from the tees to the fairway, or from the first fairway to the second, or from the fairway to the green, or all of the above.
But I agree generally that it difficult to imagine Ross doing this, but who knows?
___________________________________________
Rob,
You raise some interesting points and interesting perspectives to which I want to respond, but I am curious about something Jeff said and want to ask him a few questions before I break is train of thought.
____________________________________
Jeff,
But aren't talent and perspective often the same thing? Unlike what some have suggested, I don't believe we should judge a golf course on whether the designer has competently carried out his mission according to his plan and the owners wishes. There is something else to it, isn't there? Like the ability to see and bring out amazing subtleties that some other designers might just drive by?
If two competent architects with different perspectives work on similar sites and one comes up with a masterpiece and the other comes up with just another golf course to blemish the landscape, would you really say that it is just a matter of perspective? Or does one of their ability to perceive and create the masterpiece make him more talented?
I'd go with the second, but what do you think? And yes I am aware that "masterpiece" is a subjective term and am quite comfortable with that.
As to time on site, I am pretty sure that any gca, Doak included because I have seen his publicity shots of him at the drafting table and read his accounts of doing a routing at Sebonic before seeing the site, could decide at least initially from the topo maps how a routing would basically work. Either they put the tees further apart and further up hills, or they put them closer to the greens and only part way up hills to reduce climbs and make the walk easier.
I don't know about this one. I've been to a few of Doak's construction locations on difficult sites and however they came up with the initial plan they were sure spending a lot of time and effort to make sure they took the walker's perspective into account, on the micro level.
Again, IF a gca uses the top of hills, its because he wants the visuals. IF hole are spaced out further, he probably wants or had to fit in more real estate lots. The number of sites that would fit the category of Ballyneal, Sand Hills, or Sanctuary is very small - what maybe 6 out of 16,000 US golf courses? IT would be heard to make a valid comparison.
Again, much of what a designer "wants" determines the quality of the ultimate project.
And what do you mean that there are only 6 of 16,000 sites like Ballyneal, Sand Hills, Sanctuary? What exactly are you comparing here, because I think that over the past 20 years certain designers have pretty much exploded the notion that all the great sites are gone.
_________________________
Mike, you beat me to it. Having played a round with various designers (including Mike) I can tell you that they all notice very different things and in different degrees of detail. Surely this is where much of their "talent" lies, isn't it?