[Jeb Bearer]

I often vacation with my family to the NC mountains. Although there is an abundance of golf there, most of it is cart-only because you just couldn't walk the courses. So I was thinking, if you were designing a course on a site with enough mildly sloped plateaus/valleys to find 18 good golf holes, but divided into sections by steep ridges too severe for good golf, what would you do?

The way I see it, you have three options:
a) Build the best holes you can find on the given property, and accept that it will not be a walkable course
b) Drastically reshape the land to create a walkable routing
c) Compromise, and build several awkward "connector" holes to shorten the green to tee walks

So just how important is it to have a walkable golf course?

[JESII]

Walking the whole way is ideal for me but if I can walk the holes then ride to the next tee it's fine...not perfect, but good enough.

Riding the whole way takes alot of the enjoyment out of it for me...but if I'm in the NC mountains and want to play I'll play...

[Sean_A]

While I accept that some sites just aren't suitable for walking golf, I do think more attention to walking golf can be achieved if archies are willing to make the "sacrifices" for walking golf.  That may include several or all the holes moving up and/or down a site.  Sure, there will likely be a hole or two which fall far short of ideal because in a way most or all of the course is made up of connector holes. 

Painswick is a much loved gca course, but I wonder how the course would have turned out if #s 18 and 17 corridors were used in reverse and the property was tackled from this perspective - thus avoiding the dreaded first hole - one of the worst holes I have ever played.  Most hilly sites I know that are still walkable involve an immediate climb for a few or several holes - saving the severe downhillers for the end of the round.  Painswick is up and down, up and down - not a great walk, but salvaged by its sensibly short yardage; thus proving that if archies are willing to bend on their ideas of what should make up a course and instead go with the flow, much can be achieved on far from ideal land.   

Ciao   

[Tom_Doak]

It's very important.

Yesterday I played golf on perhaps the most extreme course I've ever seen ... Himalayan Golf Club in Pokhara, Nepal.  (I will write much more about this course once I've had time to collect my thoughts, and my photos.)  All but three holes lie in the bottom of a 250-deep canyon which you have to walk into and out of; you also have to cross the river in the middle of it four times, and a couple of other streams.  Building cart paths and bridges would be impossible, it would break the bank.

Fortunately, the course is one of the coolest walks I've ever taken.  You feel like you are trekking in the mountains along narrow paths, crossing handmade and borderline rickety bridges ... focusing on the walk between holes.  It was really an exceptional experience.  Would have been impossible for some folks, sadly, but one of my playing companions had a bum knee and our host was in his seventies, so it's not really impossible then.  And of course you couldn't do it without some young caddies who think golf bags are much easier to carry than mountain climbing provisions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeb,

I think you have to differentiate between 18 hole golf courses at golf clubs and courses intended for residential communities or resorts.

Sherwood, where they just played, is a difficult walk.
Cascata outside Las Vegas is a near impossible walk, but you can't ignore the challenge presented by the terrain AND the available budget.

[Jeb Bearer]

What, then, if the choice to preserve walkability was between having a few poor to mediocre holes or significantly modifying the terrain?

[Patrick_Mucci]

What, then, if the choice to preserve walkability was between having a few poor to mediocre holes or significantly modifying the terrain?

Do you know what the cost would be to "significantly modify the terrain" ?

What makes you think you could obtain the environmental and other permits to "significantly modify the terrain" ?

[Jeb Bearer]

What, then, if the choice to preserve walkability was between having a few poor to mediocre holes or significantly modifying the terrain?

Do you know what the cost would be to "significantly modify the terrain" ?

What makes you think you could obtain the environmental and other permits to "significantly modify the terrain" ?

Hypothetically

[Ally Mcintosh]

What, then, if the choice to preserve walkability was between having a few poor to mediocre holes or significantly modifying the terrain?

There's almost always a compromise of one sort or other Jeb...

I happen to think that golf courses are all about flow and walkability i.e. they are one experience.... A golf course with a series of disconnected "wow" holes doesn't interest me... So I am willing to sacrifice some better options in individual holes for the benefit of the complete course....

Others think differently.

As for modifying the terrain, that again has to be taken on a case-by-case basis... In the end, routing a golf course all comes down to the gut feeling of the architect. But their guts differ. It's what make some great and some not so great.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally,

There was an interesting thread where both Ross and Flynn were called in to design a course on the same piece of property.
Both submitted plans and i believe those plans were overlaid on one another so that you could see the differences and similarities.

It was quite interesting to see two of the greatest architects design a course on the same terrain

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

There was an interesting thread where both Ross and Flynn were called in to design a course on the same piece of property.
Both submitted plans and i believe those plans were overlaid on one another so that you could see the differences and similarities.

It was quite interesting to see two of the greatest architects design a course on the same terrain

I'm sure it would have been Patrick.

Were their routings close?

When the land parcel is good and the topography equally so, if you asked 10 different architects to route a course you'd get 10 different answers. Of course, that doesn't make each routing equally as good because one or two might unlock some subtleties that others overlook.

It's when the land parcel has a bunch of constraints on it that routings can tend towards the same. e.g. When there is a narrow neck of land to get through.

That's why when someone says on this site that the routing is good / bad / indifferent, I always take it with a pinch of salt. Because unless you've seen a big picture alternative that is clearly better then it is difficult to judge.

[Adam Lawrence]

This is why I think Highlands Links is one of the greatest course routings I have ever seen. Yes, it is a long walk, with a few substantial hikes between holes, and yes, there are a couple of tough climbs (the ascent of the sixteenth fairway is the hardest for me, because of where it comes in the round).

But it is also a _fantastic_ walk. At no point do you feel that you are being taken round the houses for no good reason, as is so often the case on residential courses. Thompson reveals the property to you, bit by bit, via some brilliant golf holes. By the time you get to the top of the valley, on the tenth tee, you feel completely out in the wilderness. And then, when he really couldn't get a good golf hole in the terrain, he takes you on a sylvan stroll down the riverbank.

Sometimes I reflect on the course, and wonder whether tacking back up 14 was necessary - I've always felt in the middle of a run for home by that point, and it seems a little odd to turn back on yourself. But it gets you 15, 16 and 17, all superb holes. And you return to the clubhouse, tired yes, but exhilarated. To create such a great walk, and such wonderful golf, on a site like that, is true genius imo.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I love a walkable course and even walk Ballyhack periodically but most would call it unwalkable.  I suppose it would have been possible to design it as more walkable but would have lost some of the dramatic holes. Some sites are just to hilly. And some folks think courses that I deem very walkable think they are unwalkable.  Musgrove Mill is an example. I walk it all the time as do others but I spoke with someone a few months ago who said it was unwalkable. 

[Andy Troeger]

I think Pikewood National in West Virginia is an interesting take on this. The terrain is severe, not sure I'd say extreme, but the course is walkable and they prohibit carts. While its a tough walk, my uncle was able to walk it with caddie and its a beautiful property and the lack of cart paths without question adds something to the experience. There are a couple of "connector" type holes, but they really used natural features of the property in an interesting way for the most part. The only reason I don't rate it higher is their lack of a shorter set of tees, the only two sets are 7700 and 6900, so its really tough if you are not a solid ball-striker.

Its also fun to see what Pete Dye did at Pete Dye GC compared to some of the other modern archies routings of mountain courses. PDGC's two nines are really in pretty close proximity to each other most of the time and the holes are very interesting. Many mountain courses you never see another hole or another golfer and it feels like a collection of holes more than a course. I still enjoy that kind of golf, but if you have the opportunity to create a walkable design its worth doing.

[Tyler Ince]

For me I one of the qualities I enjoy most about links golf in the British Isles is the sub 3 hour rounds walking.  That necessitates a short distance from tee to green and something we rarely see in golf stateside.  Also needed are players that don't stare, wiggle, glance, wiggle again like Sergio.  Hit it and find it..

I am in Miami now and in a weekend round you are lucky to sniff 5 hours in a cart.  To me that is unmotivating.

[Jason Thurman]

It depends on the situation. A course can't be truly great if it's not walkable, but not every course aspires to be great. Additionally, not every property is capable of producing a great course anyways. In the case of extreme terrain, it's necessary to make decisions about what you want to compromise in the design, and I think an architect has to use their judgment to decide what gets compromised on a given site. In some situations, it might make sense to compromise the quality of a hole or two in the name of achieving a walkable routing. In others, it probably makes sense to compromise walkability to create more interesting holes on more dramatic terrain.

There's a point at which either becomes too much. I've played courses with journeys of a half mile between holes, and other courses with an absolute trainwreck of a hole on completely ungolfable terrain. I've played one course that has both, and it's the worst I've ever played. But it's important to realize that not every property is capable of producing greatness, and most courses don't even aspire to be great, and thus sometimes an architect has to try to find the right balance between interesting and walkable. I'm ok if that sometimes means an unwalkable course with really good holes.

[Tom_Doak]

It depends on the situation. A course can't be truly great if it's not walkable, but not every course aspires to be great. Additionally, not every property is capable of producing a great course anyways. In the case of extreme terrain, it's necessary to make decisions about what you want to compromise in the design, and I think an architect has to use their judgment to decide what gets compromised on a given site. In some situations, it might make sense to compromise the quality of a hole or two in the name of achieving a walkable routing. In others, it probably makes sense to compromise walkability to create more interesting holes on more dramatic terrain.

There's a point at which either becomes too much. I've played courses with journeys of a half mile between holes, and other courses with an absolute trainwreck of a hole on completely ungolfable terrain. I've played one course that has both, and it's the worst I've ever played. But it's important to realize that not every property is capable of producing greatness, and most courses don't even aspire to be great, and thus sometimes an architect has to try to find the right balance between interesting and walkable. I'm ok if that sometimes means an unwalkable course with really good holes.

Can you name an unwalkable course with really good holes?  What's the best?

I played one of the candidates today ... Stone Forest in China.  There are some clearly all-world golf holes, but it is not walkable, and the long transitions on every other hole make for a very disjointed golf experience ... it's almost hard to think of it as a whole "course" at all.  It will be a real dilemma on how to rate it.  Naturally, they aspire to all the top-100 lists, but each and every course in the top 100 is way more walkable than Stone Forest.  The question is, how much better do the golf holes have to be to make up for that?

[Jason Thurman]

Tom, I grew up in Kentucky. While there isn't much (maybe any) truly great golf in the state, there are a few solid public layouts that have been built in the last 15 years that fall somewhere between "really tough to walk" and "borderline impossible to walk." The course at Dale Hollow State Park has many very good holes. While it also has a few clunkers, it fits the bill overall. There's also Old Silo in Mount Sterling which has some very good holes. Both courses probably belong in the state's top five publics, and both feature some absurd rides between holes. In particular, the ride from the second green to the third tee at Old Silo is ridiculous.

I agree, though, that it detracts a lot from the routing and experience. Old Silo might be the best collection of holes in Kentucky public golf, but the most memorable thing about the course for me is still that cart ride between 2 and 3. It's unfortunate. Personally, I'd have a hard time considering a course a legitimate world Top 100 that's unwalkable. My only point is that, for the courses that 99% of golfers are choosing from for their weekend round, there are plenty of decent courses that are very difficult to walk. The 99% probably doesn't care, and those courses often still have some legitimately good holes. Considering how difficult the properties of the courses I mentioned above are, I'm not sure the net product would have been better had they been walkable as many of the most interesting holes use the most severe terrain. Perhaps it's land unfit for purpose, but it's still fun to play once in a while.

[John Kavanaugh]

I you believe that great courses must cater to all golfers who choose to walk then you must also believe that a great course must cater to those who choose to ride.  Obviously, few if any of you do.

[Sean_A]

I you believe that great courses must cater to all golfers who choose to walk then you must also believe that a great course must cater to those who choose to ride.  Obviously, few if any of you do.

Huh?  My ideal course would most certainly allow carts, but in no way, shape or form would it include cart paths.  That means carts are subject to weather and terrain which isn't the case for walkers in nearly the same degree.  I don't think greatness and unwalkable can't work together, but that is only a theory.  Nobody whose opinion I trust has ever told me of a great unwalkable course.  It sounds like Canada may have some candidates if one wants to debate what unwalkable is.  But for me, and this is only my opinion, a walkable course isn't merely about the physical nature of the walk.  A walking course is a better course when walked.  There is an added element to the golf experience which can't be achieved in any other way.  Once the experience is enhanced in a cart, then greatness will always be difficult to achieve, but I remain open-minded.

Ciao   

[Tom_Doak]

I you believe that great courses must cater to all golfers who choose to walk then you must also believe that a great course must cater to those who choose to ride.  Obviously, few if any of you do.

John:

I don't exactly follow your logic.

I'm proud to have worked on several walking-only courses, all of which make provisions for someone with a physical handicap to ride.  But if you don't have a physical handicap, and the course is very walkable, then I don't know why they should be required to let you choose to ride to the detriment of the turf and the disturbance of other golfers.  Should they also let you play your boom box if you so choose? 

[John Kavanaugh]

Everyone does seem to love Kapalua.  It's got it all, great architects, great views and historical proof of fantastic shot values.

[John Kavanaugh]

I you believe that great courses must cater to all golfers who choose to walk then you must also believe that a great course must cater to those who choose to ride.  Obviously, few if any of you do.

John:

I don't exactly follow your logic.

I'm proud to have worked on several walking-only courses, all of which make provisions for someone with a physical handicap to ride.  But if you don't have a physical handicap, and the course is very walkable, then I don't know why they should be required to let you choose to ride to the detriment of the turf and the disturbance of other golfers.  Should they also let you play your boom box if you so choose?  

Tom,

I have friends who will not play a cart path only course and friends that will not play a walking only course.  Neither course is all things to all golfers.  A walking only course is just not playable for many golfers who are able bodied simply because they would hate it.  No different than many penal courses are unplayable for able bodied golfers who have no interest in honing their skills.  

Now I don't agree with the above logic because any course can be great for one demographic while being unplayable for another.

Please, don't pretend that walkers are any less disturbing than cart riders.

[Jason Thurman]

Once the experience is enhanced in a cart, then greatness will always be difficult to achieve, but I remain open-minded.

Ciao   

You've really got to try bringing a cooler and using on-board GPS.

I've played many rounds where the experience was enhanced by a cart. The GOLF experience might not have been enhanced, but the social experience certainly was. It's really hard to carry a six pack and the pizza you had delivered at the turn in a Mackenzie.

Don't get me wrong, I prefer walking. But it's definitely possible for a cart to enhance the experience if you're with the right group of people at the right club.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I have never seen a course that I couldn't walk. And only very few where it was little fun to do so. So, for me walkability is a non issue.

Ulrich

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()