Walking review for Palouse Ridge posted

[Garland Bayley]

Warning. The review is primarily about walking issues. A few pictures concerning walking are included. Walking reviews also contain architecture and aesthetics; and playability and strategy. Although included in this review, they are minor compared to the walking issues covered.

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

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,

I've read that the course has a 100' elevation change, top-to-bottom. Is that overbearing?

You can't be serious that the walk around that rope is anything to get upset about, or is there something missing in that photo?

[Jim_Kennedy]

..........also, the rate you quoted in your review (nicely written) is a little misleading as it's the absolute highest rate you could have paid.

You could have played it for $39.00

[Michael Moore]

Garland -

The Walking Golfer rating scale gives up to four points for "Architecture and Aesthetics".

What is meant by "architecture" in this context?

[Rob Rigg]

Michael,

The "Architecture and Aesthetics" rating should be used to rate the playing experience from an architecture and aesthetic perspective.

Did the architect use the land well?
Are there interesting and thoughtful features that you found compelling?
Does the course blend with the environment? ie) Does the architecture and aesthetic meld well.

From an aesthetic standpoint it is basically a question of how much did you enjoy your walk out in nature?

[Garland Bayley]

It is an example of a golf course not even thinking about walkers. They operate completely under the assumption that the players at their course will be carters. Therefore, they don't make any simple adjustments that would help the walker. Another example is at Tetherow. Their rest stations had water dispensers that were activated by an electric eye. Try as we might, we could not get them to be activated by and fill our water bottles that we carried as walkers. After going dry after the first station, we discovered that they would fill the cups provided for sitting in cup holders in a cart at the second station. It is an irritant that does not need to be there, but if you don't think of walkers in your customer base, then you don't make allowances for them.

Garland,

I've read that the course has a 100' elevation change, top-to-bottom. Is that overbearing?

You can't be serious that the walk around that rope is anything to get upset about, or is there something missing in that photo?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I've read that the course has a 100' elevation change, top-to-bottom. Is that overbearing?
...

I am not sure of the meaning of the question. Perhaps if I simply state that it has less elevation change from top-to-bottom than Indian Canyon that I rated 3.5 for walkability, then your question will be answered. Of course, Indian Canyon was built before GCAs had the cart crutch so it had that advantage.

[Garland Bayley]

..........also, the rate you quoted in your review (nicely written) is a little misleading as it's the absolute highest rate you could have paid.

You could have played it for $39.00

Jim,

I tried to follow what the website seems to do, which is post the most likely rate. I myself could not have played it for $39, because I was on a weekend trip.

EDIT:

Also note that to playing during prime walking time, you are required to pay for a cart. If you play when it is almost always over 90 in the summer, then you don't have to pay for a cart. Perhaps, they figure they will get the cart fee at that time of the day also without requiring it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

The range of fees should be included when posting cost-to-play. For a non-resident it's $39.00 to $89.00. What's so hard about that? We don't know when they get the most play, but there are 5 weekdays for every two on the weekends, so 'most likely rate' would have a much better chance of being lower than $89.00.

The walk around that rope wasn't really a problem, was it? 

So if IC was a 3.5 then this course must be walking you up and down that 100' pretty frequently, and not providing any good walkers paths? I know that around the campus here they always wait to put in any paths for walkers until they see what routes the students choose. Do you think they might be doing that at PR?
How is the walk if you don't go back to the tips, or play the whites instead of the blues? 
 

[Garland Bayley]

The range of fees should be included when posting cost-to-play. For a non-resident it's $39.00 to $89.00. What's so hard about that? We don't know when they get the most play, but there are 5 weekdays for every two on the weekends, so 'most likely rate' would have a much better chance of being lower than $89.00.

The walk around that rope wasn't really a problem, was it? 

So if IC was a 3.5 then this course must be walking you up and down that 100' pretty frequently, and not providing any good walkers paths? I know that around the campus here they always wait to put in any paths for walkers until they see what routes the students choose. Do you think they might be doing that at PR?
How is the walk if you don't go back to the tips, or play the whites instead of the blues? 
 

Jim,

It seems to me that they would get most non-resident play on a weekend, because of the remote location. Also, the reduced fees you mention are after 3 pm, when they will get almost no play.

The walk around the rope does not figure into walkability rating. As I mentioned above, it is a simple thing they can do to not give the impression they don't even think about walkers.

The up and down walking at Indian Canyon is more than at Palouse Ridge. The difference is that it is done while playing the course as opposed to making green to tee transfers. Off hand, I don't recall a course that I would reduce a walkability rating for the walk while playing a hole, as my philosophy is that if you can golf it, you can walk it. I have read about a few, but they are by far the exception. GCAs put more restrictions on the terrain they route a hole across than I put on my walking a golf hole. For example, see Tom Doak's discussion of terrain and routing in his routing chapter of his book.

Concerning your question about paths specifically for walkers, if you recall, there is allowance for walkers to not take the cart path as evidenced by the steep walking path directly from 5 green to 6 tee.

The walk to the tips is typically the shortest walk, with a few exceptions. The walk to the tips vs other tees does not significantly add to the elevation change that I recall, as most tees were near the same elevation.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,
It's more realistic to show the range than what's 'most likely', I don't think your assessment of what's most likely is any better than mine.
Better yet, post the link to the course so interested parties can pick the time that best suits their pocketbook.

A pull cart(standard) is about 28" wide, a golf cart is about 48" wide. If a course gives a walker 30" you can be sure the carts will follow. Walk around the rope or pick up your rig and carry it over, no?

I think I favor holes that are more level, with the elevation changes from green to the next tee.

Thanks for the answers.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
It's more realistic to show the range than what's 'most likely', I don't think your assessment of what's most likely is any better than mine.
Better yet, post the link to the course so interested parties can pick the time that best suits their pocketbook.

I have no objection to range, or link, or whatever. I tried to conform to what it seemed the website did. Your discussion here is really an issue for Rob, as he controls it once I email it to him.

A pull cart(standard) is about 28" wide, a golf cart is about 48" wide. If a course gives a walker 30" you can be sure the carts will follow. Walk around the rope or pick up your rig and carry it over, no?

There are little signs used by many courses that point where carts are to go that are placed in addition to the ropes. They could make it wide enough for the golf cart and still prevent carts from going there.

I think I favor holes that are more level, with the elevation changes from green to the next tee.

It is my understanding that Tom Doak would not favor that. In his book, he describes his method for routing in severe terrain that would tend to keep holes more level. It is my understanding that would not lead him to put elevation change between green and tee. If the terrain is so severe (Stone Eagle) that he has to make exceptions to his routing rules, it is my understanding that he would still keep the green to tee for the vast majority of golfers somewhat level, and make the exceptions for the minority that would play the tips.

Thanks for the answers.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I think I favor holes that are more level, with the elevation changes from green to the next tee. - Me

It is my understanding that Tom Doak would not favor that. In his book, he describes his method for routing in severe terrain that would tend to keep holes more level. It is my understanding that would not lead him to put elevation change between green and tee. If the terrain is so severe (Stone Eagle) that he has to make exceptions to his routing rules, it is my understanding that he would still keep the green to tee for the vast majority of golfers somewhat level, and make the exceptions for the minority that would play the tips.

Thanks for the answers.

I don't see the difference

[Jim_Kennedy]

Actually, the onus was on you to make known the scale of fees, otherwise you're not being a very thorough reviewer. The website 'conformed' nothing about the 'most likely rate'.


If you don't believe that cart riders will try to go through any opening then you've never worked at a golf course  Man, pick your pull cart up and carry it over the rope.

[Garland Bayley]

I think I favor holes that are more level, with the elevation changes from green to the next tee. - Me

It is my understanding that Tom Doak would not favor that. In his book, he describes his method for routing in severe terrain that would tend to keep holes more level. It is my understanding that would not lead him to put elevation change between green and tee. If the terrain is so severe (Stone Eagle) that he has to make exceptions to his routing rules, it is my understanding that he would still keep the green to tee for the vast majority of golfers somewhat level, and make the exceptions for the minority that would play the tips.

There's the difference.

[Garland Bayley]

If you don't believe that cart riders will try to go through any opening then you've never worked at a golf course  Man, pick your pull cart up and carry it over the rope.

So you are maintaining that cart-ball is not a gentleman's game, whereas golf is?

Sorry, you walked right into that one.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Touche, but no, they just like to take the most direct route, like you do when carrying, pulling.

[Garland Bayley]

Touche, but no, they just like to take the most direct route, like you do when carrying, pulling.

Sorry, but at cart-ball courses, it is often nigh on impossible to walk the most direct route. And it seems you are maintaining that a gentleman does not lose his gentleman status when he willfully ignores directions that were put specifically in place for him while cart-balling on a golf course.

[Rob Rigg]

I updated the pricing to reflect the range which is what I normally do for reviews that I put on the site.

Someone interested in playing the course can check the PR homepage for specifics.

[Garland Bayley]

I updated the pricing to reflect the range which is what I normally do for reviews that I put on the site.

Someone interested in playing the course can check the PR homepage for specifics.

Thanks Rob,

I guess I misremembered. Apparently, I got the style of one cost number from the reviewed I copied from the website to start my review.

Jim, as you get older you misremember more oftener.

I should have done better.

[Jordan Wall]

Garland,

I disagree with many of your points.  First of all, to focus on a golf course based on walkability alone is illogical and in doing so missing the point of the golf course altogether.  The main concern when evaluating a golf course should be how well the course is routed based on the property given, and how well and uniquely each of the holes were designed.

In this case, Harbottle got the most out of the property and produced some wonderful golf holes.  The fourth is a great par-3, for example, and par-4 holes such as the 7th, 8th, 14th, and 15th are also very good and use the land as well it could have been used.  The tenth and eighteenth are both very good par-5's, and with the exception of the 12th, there isn't a bland hole on the golf course.

Harbottle used the best features of the land to design some really good holes such as 14 and 15, and when the land presented a challenge, such as the 5th and 17th, he still created solid and unique golf holes.  As such, given the severity of the terrain, he did a good job routing the golf course, getting pretty much everything he could out of the terrain.

As far as walking goes, there are going to be difficult green to tee walks on any golf course with terrain that severe.  The walk to the second is not nearly as bad as you say, nor is the walk to the third, fourth, sixth, and seventh.  Not to say that they are the shortest and flattest green to tee walks, but with the terrain Harbottle had to work with what else was he supposed to do?

I feel like you are being far too nitpicky of certain things and need to evaluate the golf course for just that, the golf course.  If all you base your review of the golf course of is on it's walkability, then you surely are missing the point.

[Garland Bayley]

Jordan,

The review was on TheWalkingGolfer.com. Most of the rating points are devoted to walkability. It is not the review I would write for this website.

The fourth is a good par 3 for a 1 handicapper like yourself. For the other 99% of golfers that would typically play a course, it is not so good. You mention the 15th. I would suggest that it is quite a bit weaker than the 18th at Olympic Gold Mountain, and I would have to wonder about your bias if you felt otherwise.

Palouse Ridge will get a significant percentage of play from 1 handicappers and better like yourself, because it will be used I assume pretty much daily by the WSU golf team. That does not mean that a review for those thinking of going to play there should be targeted to near scratch and better golfers.

As for the ease of the walk from 5 to 6, I think the picture tells the story pretty well.

[Jim_Kennedy]

......it seems you are maintaining that a gentleman does not lose his gentleman status when he willfully ignores directions that were put specifically in place for him while cart-balling on a golf course.

No, I'm not maintaining that at all. If you leave a wide enough area and don't put a directional sign some people think it's OK to take that route, period.

They are no worse than the walker who forgets to replace his divot, doesn't repair his ball mark, takes the short-cut to the next hole through the bunker, pulls his hand cart across a green.

Ungentlemans come in all flavors. 

[Jordan Wall]

Jordan,

The review was on TheWalkingGolfer.com. Most of the rating points are devoted to walkability. It is not the review I would write for this website.

According the Walking Golfer, walking is just 40% of the ratings, yet you spent parctically the whole time complaining about it without any review of the actual course.

The fourth is a good par 3 for a 1 handicapper like yourself. For the other 99% of golfers that would typically play a course, it is not so good. You mention the 15th. I would suggest that it is quite a bit weaker than the 18th at Olympic Gold Mountain, and I would have to wonder about your bias if you felt otherwise.

The fourth provides a bail out to the right.  Though it doesn't look it from the tee, there is substantial room, and even at that the hole plays just 158 yards from the back markers, manageable for all.  The 15th is a better hole than the 18th at Gold Mountain but that shouldn't be an issue at all.  It's a good hole, plain and simple.  It's not about comparing holes, because the land is so much different on different courses anyways.  With the land Harbottle had to use for the 15th at Palouse Ridge, can you think of a better way to use that 380 yard parcel?  Not to mention, that is the course's only real driveable par-4, and is a great addition the overall quality of the golf course.

Palouse Ridge will get a significant percentage of play from 1 handicappers and better like yourself, because it will be used I assume pretty much daily by the WSU golf team. That does not mean that a review for those thinking of going to play there should be targeted to near scratch and better golfers.

From the white tee markers, the course plays a meager 6100 yards with firm conditions.  The course can also be played at 5500 yards or somewhere in between if one chooses to divy up the tee boxes they play from.  The greens are manageable to all and the playing corridors and pretty wide.  There are very few forced carries and as such, it is very playable for the higher handicapper.  At the same time, I can move all the way back and have all the challenge I want, without it being overly difficult to the point where it just beats me up.  From my standpoint, that makes  it playable for everyone.

As for the ease of the walk from 5 to 6, I think the picture tells the story pretty well.

True, it's uphill, but what else is Harbottle going to do at that portion of the property.  I do not find it to be overly taxing.

[Garland Bayley]

Jordan,

The review was on TheWalkingGolfer.com. Most of the rating points are devoted to walkability. It is not the review I would write for this website.

According the Walking Golfer, walking is just 40% of the ratings, yet you spent parctically the whole time complaining about it without any review of the actual course.

And, I stated up front that there would be minimal review of the course, because it is not recommended to walking golfers. If a walking golfer wants to know if he should travel to Pullman to walk and play, then the review is appropriate. Furthermore, 40% is twice what any other single characteristic is given in a review.

The fourth is a good par 3 for a 1 handicapper like yourself. For the other 99% of golfers that would typically play a course, it is not so good. You mention the 15th. I would suggest that it is quite a bit weaker than the 18th at Olympic Gold Mountain, and I would have to wonder about your bias if you felt otherwise.

The fourth provides a bail out to the right.  Though it doesn't look it from the tee, there is substantial room, and even at that the hole plays just 158 yards from the back markers, manageable for all.  The 15th is a better hole than the 18th at Gold Mountain but that shouldn't be an issue at all.  It's a good hole, plain and simple.  It's not about comparing holes, because the land is so much different on different courses anyways.  With the land Harbottle had to use for the 15th at Palouse Ridge, can you think of a better way to use that 380 yard parcel?  Not to mention, that is the course's only real driveable par-4, and is a great addition the overall quality of the golf course.

The 15th at Palouse and the 18th at Olympic Gold Mountain are the drivable par 4s on the respective courses. I find your claim that the 15th at Palouse is better to be disingenuous. Perhaps you should state your conflict of interest to the world wide readers of this site, before coming to such an ardent defense. I will admit you know the 4th at Palouse better than me, and my opinion of it may rise if I were to do a repeat play.

Palouse Ridge will get a significant percentage of play from 1 handicappers and better like yourself, because it will be used I assume pretty much daily by the WSU golf team. That does not mean that a review for those thinking of going to play there should be targeted to near scratch and better golfers.

From the white tee markers, the course plays a meager 6100 yards with firm conditions.  The course can also be played at 5500 yards or somewhere in between if one chooses to divy up the tee boxes they play from.  The greens are manageable to all and the playing corridors and pretty wide.  There are very few forced carries and as such, it is very playable for the higher handicapper.  At the same time, I can move all the way back and have all the challenge I want, without it being overly difficult to the point where it just beats me up.  From my standpoint, that makes  it playable for everyone.

Yes Jordan, the fairways are only "pretty wide". How is the wind there in Pullman? Would the wind conditions suggest pretty wide is adequate? I am of the opinion that they are lacking in width, and that some of the bunker placement was for protection from that lack of width and from the penal nature of off fairway and off playing corridor excursions. The greens are in no way an asset to the course.

As for the ease of the walk from 5 to 6, I think the picture tells the story pretty well.

True, it's uphill, but what else is Harbottle going to do at that portion of the property.  I do not find it to be overly taxing.

Did you read the review? It stated there was no need to locate the tee away from the fifth green. Since you are knowledgeable of golf course architecture, you should recognize that a tee located closer to the fifth green would have allowed the hole to take on Redan characteristics.