News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« on: September 24, 2009, 01:13:00 PM »
I’m not a big fan of unwalkable golf courses, but even I have to admit that golf carts allow designers to build golf courses in places where traditional (walking) golf would be impossible.    Do we need to build golf courses in such places?   I don’t think so, but in the eyes of many we should, because these golf courses can be spectacular.  Here is what award winning designer Jim Engh had to say about the issue on another thread:

From my perspective, I often times do not get the opportunity to choose whether walking is an option. We are typically given  mountainous and very rolling terrain type sites. On the truly mountainous sites like Sanctuary, Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon, the decision was not whether walking is resonable, but more to the point,  is this project even possible to build on this land. At this point, riding vs walking is a mute point.   The good news is, if it is possible it will be very spectacular.

Surely most golfers and many designers agree with Mr. Engh.  They really like spectacular, inspiring, powerful golf holes, and they don’t mind a cart ride to get there.  Most of the golfers would be in carts anyway.  And so, the cart-ball-spectacular-golf concept has moved beyond the severe sites.  Whether from good business sense or artistic flair or both, designers like Mr. Engh will not pass up an opportunity to build one of these spectacular holes which require carts, even where walking might have been possible.   Here again is Mr. Engh on the issue:

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 their project? In my mind that is an easy decision. Do the better course.


Again, this is how many see the issue:  As a trade-off between walkability versus the quality of the golf holes.    And given a choice between a walkable yet mundane golf course and a unwalkable yet spectacular one, most will go with the latter.  When the golf holes are better otherwise, then walking be damned.  When one sees some of these spectacular holes with their panoramic views and majestic drops and carries it is easy to understand the logic of the tradeoff.   Who’d pass that up to play a mundane yet walkable hole?  I might, but then I am nuts anyway, aren’t I?  But for now I’ve decided to accept the premise and run with it.  

So I got to wondering, what about all those unfortunate courses that were built before carts-only courses were even possible?   Not all these courses are easily walkable and sometimes the designer must have had to really walk to make them walkable at all. Surely compromises and sacrifices must have been made for walkability.  And what about those designers that are still striving to make their courses walkable today?    Couldn’t they have built better courses if they had given up on the antiquated notion of golf as a walking game?  

So let’s fix them, at least hypothetically.  Let’s pretend we can get rid of the mundane and bring on the spectacular.  Let’s make the courses better with a few well-placed rides and cart paths.    

What old courses could be improved if they just did away with walking?   What new courses could be similarly improved?

I’ll start with a new one, since it is perhaps easier to imagine them having been designed differently.  

Sand Hills. Presumably C&C gave some thought to creating a cohesive design that many could walk, and despite some pretty hilly terrain they succeeded.  But remember the story about how C&C found something like 14 billion golf holes and then chose the eighteen they would use.  Well maybe it wasn’t 14 billion but it was way more than 18.   Shouldn’t they have just set aside walkability and used the best 18 of this much larger pool of great holes.  I am not suggesting 2 mile drives (except the one that already exists to get to the course) but surely they could have included more spectacular and inspiring holes if they didn’t have to worry about the walks or climbs.   Maybe more elevated tees perhaps?  Maybe some heroic shots from the top of one dune to the top of another, then drive to the top of next dune for an elevated tee shot there as well?    So which holes at Sand Hills can we get rid of?  And what direction should we go to find something better?

Or how about Ballyneal?  Again it looks like it will be hell to walk but thanks to a pretty clever design it turns out it isn’t a bad walk at all.   But still, surely it could have been better if we’d just forget about walking?    What hole should we throw out first?

And Rock Creek is a mountain course on a pretty severe site, yet it is designed for walking.   But how much better could it be if they just forgot about walking and used the land to make the best golf holes?

All the Bandon Courses could be better with cart drives, although without using any of the mundane land they might end up with a few less courses.   But then we should go for quality anyway.  Who wouldn't want to Just play on the most spectacular land from one end of the resort to the other, and skip all the rest?  Carts golf would allow that!  

Crystal Downs isn’t the easiest of walks.   Let’s get rid of some mundane holes and replace them.  Where should we start?   Some don’t like the 9th so how about we reverse the green and tee and then just drive up there and play it as thrilling downhill par three with a breathtaking view.  Would the course be better because of this?   Or how about we throw out 15 and just drive somewhere else.  That is a quirky hole that would never make in onto a course where carts controlled.

And what about Pine Valley?   There is a funny story on another thread about golfers being irked about the no carts thing, so it must not be a cake walk.   Why not improve the course by getting some carts and changing the design to add in a bit more inspirational?

Surely there must be more.   Augusta is hilly isn't it?   Imagine how much more spectular it could be if it had more elevated tees and more powerful golf holes.   And Cypress is fun but there are some giant sand dunes there that have neither a green nor a tee on top of them.  What a waste.  Carts could fix that.  

How would designing for carts have made these and other courses better?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 01:18:40 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)

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2009, 01:21:09 PM »
wow Dave, just because you disagree with Jim, you dont have to be so sarcastic and mean -spirited about it
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2009, 01:21:13 PM »
"Golf courses must be designed with walking in mind. (There is not a great course in the world that is impracticable to walk.)"
from A Call to Feet "Golf is a Walking Game", USGA, 1995, pg. 13

It would seem that the USGA says Jim has been forgoing the opportunity to build great golf courses.
"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

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2009, 01:33:18 PM »
Paul,

Sorry you took it that way because that was not my intent.  I am not trying to be mean spirited.  This isn't a personal attack.  I am not calling names or twisting beliefs.   I am just trying to explore what seems to be some pretty commonly held wisdom these days.   Don't pass up a "better" golf hole for the sake of preserving walking.   I quote Jim Engh because he says this quite articulately, and his courses, where he presumably followed this approach, are considered to be quite good.   I also quote him to let him speak for himself, and so I will not be falsely accused of misrepresenting him, as I repeatedly have been in the past.

Plus Jim Engh is not the only one who designs this way or feels this way, many do on this website and it looks like many designers do as well. And while I respect Mr. Engh for coming out and saying it,  I'd also like to explore where this approach gets us.  

What if the the great dead designers (and some of the live ones) would have had and used  the cart-ball option?  Would golf be better off or worse?  

Surely that is a fair question isn't it?   And one that might give us insight into whether this approach is good for golf and golf design in the long run?  
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 01:37:08 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)

Jim Colton

Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2009, 01:44:01 PM »
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.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2009, 01:46:47 PM »
Interesting article on the cart path debate with some good Doak quotes:

http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/golf-the-paths-to-hell/1
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Kyle Henderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2009, 01:48:34 PM »
I some cases, cart paths preventh the incorporation of better holes, with turnabouts and such built to service one hole taking up space that might have been used as ideal teeing grounds or green sites for adjacent holes.

Case in point, the 10th and 11th  holes at Pacific Dunes.

Edit: Looks like Jud's article beat me to the punch!
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 01:50:40 PM by Kyle Henderson »
"I always knew terrorists hated us for our freedom. Now they love us for our bondage." -- Stephen T. Colbert discusses the popularity of '50 Shades of Grey' at Gitmo

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2009, 01:48:42 PM »
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.
Mr Hurricane

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2009, 01:53:45 PM »
At Ballyneal we'd have to start on the sixth hole. Originally designed to be a par 5 from atop the dune, placing the tee there would have ruined the "not bad" walk. So, it was changed in the field and seems like the obvious place to start ruining....uhh... I mean...uhh changing it into a cart ball course.

Personally, I loathe the vista tee. Admittedly I brake my own rule here because that is based on my performance from said altitude. 100 yards is barely wide enough when faced with all that room to err. Ok Ok, I also started hating vista tees when the routing was sacrificed for me when I walked. Think Carmel Valley Ranch's 11th or Pinon Hills original 5th.

On the converse, I'm a huge fan of teeing grounds below the grade of the hole. i.e. Pebble's eighth. (and the old first)

At Sand Hills, I know behind some of the dunes are areas hidden to the golfer that the maintenance staff has used for various reasons. Place a high tee there and you'd have to make sure all the visible areas were acceptable eye candy.

P.s. I didn't read any sarcastic meaning into your post David. I kinda like the role reversal and hope it yields to others what I feel it has revealed to me about me and my preferences.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2009, 01:55:20 PM »
wow Dave, just because you disagree with Jim, you dont have to be so sarcastic and mean -spirited about it

Paul,

I think you read something here that was not intended.

Bob

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2009, 01:57:23 PM »
Unfortunately David let the sarcasm slide in just a little at the end. See the bold below.

"And Cypress is fun but there are some giant sand dunes there that have neither a green nor a tee on top of them.  What a waste.  Carts could fix that."

David, if you go edit the original, I will delete this post.
"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

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2009, 02:20:24 PM »
From the T&L article linked above:

Quote
If you've played Pacific Dunes, where carts are permitted only under special circumstances (in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act)

Is it the case that the ADA requires carts to be available at all courses?  Or is it just at public courses?  I didn't think there were carts at Bethpage Black, for example.

"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Kyle Henderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2009, 02:27:38 PM »
At Clear Creek Tahoe, a new course that is surprisingly walkable given its location, they put down some sort of compound (I forget the exact name) that essentially hardens the dirt such that it behaves more and more like asphalt over time as it is compacted, yet it looks essentially like (a highly compacted iteration of) the surrounding soil. This was only used in the wooded sections of the course, mainly from greens to tees, with cart traffic directed onto the fairways for most of the hole.

I think this sort of compromise may be preferable to forcing everyone to walk (since that may hurt business) while eliminating many of the issues with routing, playbility and visual distraction associated with green to tee concrete.

Thoughts?
"I always knew terrorists hated us for our freedom. Now they love us for our bondage." -- Stephen T. Colbert discusses the popularity of '50 Shades of Grey' at Gitmo

Mike Sweeney

Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2009, 03:16:44 PM »
I'll bite.

I am a big fan of The Orchards. It has a few Plane Jane holes however. Now if Ross and Company had been able to buy and use the land to the northwest of this photo on top of holes 6, 7 and 8:



they would have had to deal with another 75 feet or so of elevation. Those holes leading up to that corner are very good. I don't know if the land was available but the course would be borderline walkable if you start climbing up another 75 feet.

The holes at the bottom get a little squeezed, especially 1 and 9, so they could have skipped the "we need to get back to the clubhouse after 9 holes" mentality, and The Orchards could just be an out and back style course if you had carts.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2009, 03:33:45 PM »
Mike,

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 believe that Ross would route the course on playable land even if a little severe, and that he would have placed the tees close to the green. Therefore, I would suggest that even with a little more severe land Ross would still have made a walkable course.

"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

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #15 on: September 24, 2009, 03:37:56 PM »
wow Dave, just because you disagree with Jim, you dont have to be so sarcastic and mean -spirited about it

Paul,

I think you read something here that was not intended.

Bob

if i did i apologize
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #16 on: September 24, 2009, 04:11:34 PM »
On the converse, I'm a huge fan of teeing grounds below the grade of the hole. i.e. Pebble's eighth. (and the old first)

I love this idea, particularly as a challenge to the "better" golfers. I'm always annoyed when I see back tees perched high "for visibility". If you really want to challenge better golfers, challenge them with awkwardness, blindness, etc.

As for DM's original post, I hope the style won't stop people from commenting on the specifics. I'm admittedly biased, as I can't imagine any top 10 course, classic or new, being a cart ball course. And I don't think forced cart ball courses are spectacular in almost any way shape or form.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #17 on: September 24, 2009, 04:27:48 PM »
David,

When Jim Engh posted about the construction of courses on "impossible" terrain I felt myself nodding my head because I totally understand the desire that a developer/homeowner/whomever may have to play golf at their retirement home, 2nd home, etc. up in the mountains.

The 50/50 debate is what confused me which is why I asked the question - "Jim, can you give an example of a 50/50 site where you elected to make it walkable instead of "cart ball"?

Your post touches on exactly these types of courses - eg) Sand Hills, BN, RCCC, etc. - that in many architect's opinions would probably be 50/50 courses where you could take walkability away and use all available land for the course and make it great "cart golf."

Question - Are Doak and C&C just more gifted than other Architects? Do they have a vision that others do not have to create walking option courses (ie - the golfer decides), as opposed to carts only, on terrain that is either rolling or challenging?

Mr Engh is obviously a great architect - I am not trying to slight him in any way - but what makes C&C and Doak different in their ability to deliver walkable courses on tough terrain? And could others do so if they were more committed to that "cause"?

Is the cart an unnecessary crutch that architects use on difficult sites because it is "more" challenging to build a walkable course on tough terrain?

Do Doak and Coore spend more time onsite which allows them to find these fantastic routings that are walkable?

Is Cart Golf on potentially walkable sites the easy route out or does it in fact produce better courses? ie) in the golfing public's opinion, not just the opinion of the small group on the GCA site.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2009, 05:12:38 PM »
Rob,

The biggest difference is perspective, not talent.  It isn't more difficult to route a walkable course on tweener terrain, its just different.  IF CC and Doak build the most walkable courses, its because they forego tees on hilltops because of their prefrences, whereas a Jim Engh or a Jeff Brauer might prefer the stunning visuals afforded by the elevated tee.  Again, not more difficult, just different perspective.

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.

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.

A better comparison might be Reynolds Plantation where JE and CC have courses near each other on similar land and for the same owner.

I agree that it would probably take field work to decide just exactly where the view would be good to great without going up the hill an inch further than necessary.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2009, 05:44:43 PM »
The biggest difference is perspective, not talent. 

I disagree.
Some people are better at algebra than others.
There are very few golf course architects and their abilities are skewed greatly because of the barrier to entry - as opposed to algebra which most do study at some point and the best may continue on - someone bad in algebra doesn't usually become an algebra teacher.
It would be hard to image that there aren't great differences between routing abilities.
By the time someone can attribute someone's routing ability they have been at the job for at least 10 years.
Cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2009, 05:57:03 PM »
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.

Quote
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.  

Quote
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?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 05:59:36 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: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2009, 05:59:43 PM »
Jeff,

Thanks for your response - just a couple of follow up questions.

- In terms of perspective vs talent - Does that mean that you believe, given a site such as Sand Hills, any architect would have seen 130 holes and chosen the "best 18" as C&C did - (or a similar routing that would have been as good)?

- This leads to question two - time on site - From everything that I have read, Bill Coore seems to spend more time on site than any other GCA and consistently produces fantastic courses that are walkable. How accurate are your "pre-routings" based on topo maps? Do you often adjust them to make the most of a vista? (eg - tee at the top of the hill). Does the quality of the property and potential for a course to be great dictate how much time you spend on the site?

- Jim mentioned a 50/50 walking site leading to a "cart golf" design decison for him - What are your thoughts on a 50/50 walking site - When would you go the way of "mostly cart golf" versus "walking or cart option for the golfer"? How great does that vista from a hill need to be, and how many times would it need to occur over a routing, for you to decide that walkability should be compromised?


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #22 on: September 24, 2009, 06:45:46 PM »

. . .
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?

...

You're just not as lazy as I am. Thank you for giving the explanation for why I chose to write "most" instead of nearly all. ;)
"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

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #23 on: September 24, 2009, 06:46:17 PM »
The biggest difference is perspective, not talent.

I disagree.
Some people are better at algebra than others.
There are very few golf course architects and their abilities are skewed greatly because of the barrier to entry - as opposed to algebra which most do study at some point and the best may continue on - someone bad in algebra doesn't usually become an algebra teacher.
It would be hard to image that there aren't great differences between routing abilities.
By the time someone can attribute someone's routing ability they have been at the job for at least 10 years.
Cheers

Mike,

I was speaking specifically of my assessment of Jim Engh's talent vs Doak's or Coore's. I consider them to be all roughly equal. I haven't studied their works enough to make any detailed assessments, however. I am pretty confident in my assessment that their routings differ because of perspective, though.

David,

See above. Certainly there are gca's out there who should be designing any more than I should be a ballerina.....I would liken perspective more to experience than I would to talent.  Jim and I both came out of the Nugent school where some form of practicality was always stressed and we probably don't veer out of that too far, although our work suggests we certainly try to veer towards more dramatic courses.  Doak and Coore came out of the Dye, all courses are high end school.  Certainly, they are starting out from different places than Jim and I.  That said, Dye has some big walks on some courses, having morphed into a developers architect because of his name.  I would be interested to see future Doak courses if his career goes the same way.  They can't all be Ballyneal, Sandhills sites, at least if you have bills to pay!

Robb,

I will have to admit that both gca.com and the Yates speed of play report have got me putting greens and tees closer together than I did ten years ago.  There was a period when I had some pretty long walks between holes and didn't really consider that to be an issue.  I was doing the Quarry at the time and made a big effort then and since to keep things tighter, and perhaps not so uphill.  (the fact that I am now at least aware of my knees, even if I can't say they hurt has influenced that, too)

That said, I can think of two examples of my work where I had a choice of putting a tee on top a big hill and did it at the expense of any chance of walking - Colbert Hills No. 7 and Cowboys No. 2.  Colbert Hills already had some housing walks, but was intended as a tournament course so it was a hard decision.  Cowboys was going to be a cart course from the word go, so there was no question that tee was going to provide that spectacular view.

As to plans vs site time - I think it all works out about the same.  Some things you see better on plan, like "pace" as discussed before in a recent thread, spacing, etc.  Others you have to finalize in the field.  Both are required to complete the routing.

As to would any gca at Sand Hills, see above.  However, if I had to guess, I would think many, many gca's would have found a great routing at SH. I think what sets the CC design apart is how they fleshed out the details, especially in the bunker style.  CC had their idea on bunker style before they got to SH, I think.  Others would have had to modify their bunker style.  Not too many gca's would have done bunkers like that, at that time. (I know, I have asked a few of them!)  It turned out to be a perfect match of style and site.  I can see a difference (in photos, since I haven't seen the courses) in Lehman's and JN's courses on similar terrain.  Or the Faldo course out near Prairie Dunes.

I believe sometimes the analysis confuses many related issues - i.e. Coore does great bunkers and his courses are walkable......in reality, Jim is talking about real mountain courses in his post.  SH is hilly, but there aren't huge mountains.  Again, I grant that CC seem to have kept most tees below the hill tops which would make it more walkable than what others might have come up with. However, it might be just as much to keep players out of the wind, too. I just don't know.  But there are a lot of interelated issues that go into any final design decision.  If Jim E is focused on the GD beauty shot when his course wins the Best New, that is certainly a different perspective than Ben going out and using his tournement experience to know that being out of the wind can be an asset on certain holes.

Again, perspective!

I have told the story about my co-design with John Fought.  We were designing a green site one day and it occurred to me our argument on bunker placment really came down to one of circulation.  He didn't want a backing bunker because he wanted a direct walk from the green to the next BACK tee.  I didn't want a side bunker because I wanted a direct walk off the green to the cart path I knew  97% of players would use.  Using those two criteria can certainly limit green side bunker placements!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2009, 11:53:54 PM »
Jeff,

Thanks for your thorough answers - actually hearing from a gca about their thought process while designing a course and thinking about a site are things that makes this DG great.

I assume we scared Jim off for good after the antics that went down with the previous thread which is unfortunate as I was looking forward to/really hoping for a little more detail on the "50/50" point that he made.

For many reasons, I hope that courses on "reasonable" terrain that are constructed in the future will at least provide walking as an option, even if the developer and architect know that more golfers tend to ride. "Hope" being the key word there.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back