[Garland Bayley]

...
Asserting that you should be able to walk from the clubhouse to the course just eliminated Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes...two very special places.
...

I don't get the Bandon Dunes reference. The only course there not near its clubhouse is Shorty's. Does Shorty's need a clubhouse?

[Steven Blake]

Posted by: Sean_A 

Insert Quote


Quote from: Chris Johnston on Today at 01:21:07 PM

Postulating that all courses should be walkable is like postulating that all nutrition must be consumed using a fork.   

Asserting that you should be able to walk from the clubhouse to the course just eliminated Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes...two very special places.

It's a big world.  Beautiful and wonderful things abound.


Chris

You are missing the point.  Ideally, should the house not be near the 18th green?  Does anybody want the house a long walk from the course?  Does anybody ideally think there should be long walks between holes?  I think compromises are made which creates long walks on courses and to the house.  Sometimes courses are good enough to overcome the compromises; sometimes not. 
 

Sean,

Couldn't agree more.

Steve Blake

[Chris Johnston]

Postulating that all courses should be walkable is like postulating that all nutrition must be consumed using a fork.   

Asserting that you should be able to walk from the clubhouse to the course just eliminated Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes...two very special places.

It's a big world.  Beautiful and wonderful things abound.

Chris

You are missing the point.  Ideally, should the house not be near the 18th green?  Does anybody want the house a long walk from the course?  Does anybody ideally think there should be long walks between holes?  I think compromises are made which creates long walks on courses and to the house.  Sometimes courses are good enough to overcome the compromises; sometimes not. 

Ciao

Hi Sean,

I vote for the best 18 holes possible, always and with no exception.  In many cases, it is a miracle if the best 18 holes happen to be within a tight routing yet we are accustomed to this paradigm.  A course on 150-200 acres, in itself, probably demanded numerous compromises simply to make a routing work.  If you were on 3,000 acres, and had a wonderful site for the clubhouse and a world class site for a course, would it make sense to sacrifice either for the mere sake of walking from the clubhouse to the course?  All you have to do is drive (or catch a shuttle) to the golf course and go have fun, and I think that is well worth it if the reward is great. 

Long transitions aren't my favorite either, but I would prefer a little longer walk to a better hole over a walk off to a not very good hole 100% of the time.  I suppose it depends on how long the transition really is...I don't think I'd want to walk a mile between holes no matter how good the next one may be but I'd happily walk an extra 50-100 yards for something special.  Each hole has a beginning and an end, and I'd prefer what's between the two be as exhilarating and fun as is possible.  I'm far less concerned with what is between the holes.

CJ

[Steven Blake]

Chris,

Your right I would rather have a longer walk to a better hole than a short walk to a weak hole. But I am still not a fan of hill climbing throughout the round.

Steve Blake

[Chris Johnston]

...
Asserting that you should be able to walk from the clubhouse to the course just eliminated Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes...two very special places.
...

I don't get the Bandon Dunes reference. The only course there not near its clubhouse is Shorty's. Does Shorty's need a clubhouse?

Garland,

I'd guess the first tee at Old Mac is almost a mile from the Bandon Dunes clubhouse on a straight line, and probably more than a mile if one were to walk.  I recall (and could be mistaken) that the central driving range is a good walk from most first tees.  That's why they have a shuttle...to get people where they want to go. I have no problem with this, but believe it to be accurate.

CJ

[Chris Johnston]

Chris,

Your right I would rather have a longer walk to a better hole than a short walk to a weak hole. But I am still not a fan of hill climbing throughout the round.

Steve Blake

Steve,

Me too, but would that not limit our ability to play really good but hilly courses?  Old Mac has some "huffers" but I'd play it again.

CJ

[DMoriarty]

If the walk from the clubhouse is relevant, does that render Sand Hills unwalkable?  Alternatively, is Ben's Porch the "clubhouse"?  I am a walking golfer but I can't say i am religous about it.  If the terrain dictates the use of a cart, so be it.  similarly, if one's physical condition or preferences dictate the use of a cart, I would rather see people p[laying than missing out.  But I think a lot is missed when one rides rather than walking.  I also have problems when the design is predicated on riding and makes the walk more difficult; e.g. as noted by others, distances from green to tee.  Finally, improper placement of paved cart paths are a pet peeve.  But these issues can be handled intelligently.

Shelly,

Your Sand Hills example brings to mind the old adage about how hard cases make bad law, except here it is that great courses sometimes make for bad architecture.  Sand Hills is great, and for many it is walkable.  But, generally, a long golf cart ride to and and from the course is a negative development in golf course architecture.  Same goes for courses with commutes between holes, and courses with dead end routings that don't return to the clubhouse or first tee. I don't mind when people choose to ride, but I don't like architectural features which encourage riding, especially when the land is well suited for walking.

[Steven Blake]

Chris,

Unfortunately I haven't played Old Mac but it looks great! Certainly there are some exceptions to the rule, and from what I understand Old Mac is probably one of them!

Steve Blake

[DMoriarty]

Steve Blake,

Old Macdonald has a small pro shop right at the first tee, as do the other courses at Bandon. There is no packing up the golf cart at some remote location then trekking out to the first tee in a golf cart.  And since carts are prohibited anyway, how one arrives at the first tee is of much less importance.

Chris Johnston is trying to make it seem like the main hotel at a large resort is the equivalent of the clubhouse at a private club, but that is just not the case.  

[Peter Pallotta]

David, Shel - your exchange reminds me of a post I just made on the 'do you need an architect to restore a classic course'. There, my (implicit) point was that we can't escape the question of what a 'restoration' actually is/would be, what the word implies, what one person vs another would most value in such a restoration/restored classic. Here, the notion of great architecture (or of a great course) implies for some a set of individual holes (the 'best possible' 18 holes the site could yield), each with its own beauty and interest and challenge; while for others (including me) it refers to the whole round, the whole journey, the whole experience -- even if it means that the routing includes some so-called transition holes or some holes that might not be considered amongst the best possible. Now, I'm not so knowlegable, talented or enamoured with my own opinions about golf holes and their greatness that I insist on the 'best possible 18 holes;' I wouldn't know them if I saw them. So, while I'm not a religious walker (and will gladly take a cart under some circumstances/conditions), I can't and have never been able to understand how long carts rides out to the 1st or back from the 18th or between one green and the next tee don't negatively impact the whole journey and the whole experience. Does that mean that the architecture and the course are not as great as they might've been? I guess the answer for me is 'yes'.

Peter
(PS I really do respect and appreciate the opinions of the more travelled and experienced and expert posters around here; but I don't feel obliged to change my basic feeling/preference just because one or even all of them says "SandHills".)

[Lou_Duran]

And no fair citing the Yank (who is so far out on the Bell Curve to make him statistically insignificant, though there is probably someone in this DG who would argue that the walk actually begins from the parking lot). 

Sweet Lou

I can only surmise the above refers to moi    If this is the case, I thiink you are gravely mistaken.  I think if asked, nearly all golfers would say its better to have the house as a true 19th rather than a long walk from the course.  Its common sense even if not for Texans 

Ciao

Can there be another "Yank"?  I was not referring specifically to your preference for locating the "house" close the first tee and 18th green (I am glad that you're cutting the archies some slack by not requiring returning nines).  Instead, I was speaking more generally: in the universe of golfers, you come across to me somewhere in the 3rd or 4th std. deviations from the mean.  After all, how many folks get excited about a club's "proper English lunch"?  While holding all other things equal (or in Goodalese c.p.), I prefer fewer steps than more, but seldom is this the case.  The cart ride to the prairie range then to the first tee is one of Sand Hills' charms.  I wouldn't change a thing.

Long transitions aren't my favorite either, but I would prefer a little longer walk to a better hole over a walk off to a not very good hole 100% of the time.

As a fellow member of the Golf I A Big World sect, I marvel at how some downgrade modern golf courses for longer distances from green to tee while at the same time, 75-100 yard walks at classic era courses- e.g. CPC's from 14 to 15 and from 15 to 16- are seen as wonderful transitions building suspense and excitement in anticipation of what's to come.  I would love to see Dr. Mac write his principles today when most golfers ride, construction budgets aren't as constrained as they were in his day, and the EPA, CoE, CCC, local governments and a myriad of environmental interveners determine what can be built on (think CPC's 15, 16, 17 going inland like #18).  Knowing his very conservative roots and direct manner, my bet is that the modern "Golf Architecture" would be a controversial read and not all that well received here. 
   

[Sean_A]

Postulating that all courses should be walkable is like postulating that all nutrition must be consumed using a fork.   

Asserting that you should be able to walk from the clubhouse to the course just eliminated Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes...two very special places.

It's a big world.  Beautiful and wonderful things abound.

Chris

You are missing the point.  Ideally, should the house not be near the 18th green?  Does anybody want the house a long walk from the course?  Does anybody ideally think there should be long walks between holes?  I think compromises are made which creates long walks on courses and to the house.  Sometimes courses are good enough to overcome the compromises; sometimes not. 

Ciao

Hi Sean,

I vote for the best 18 holes possible, always and with no exception.  In many cases, it is a miracle if the best 18 holes happen to be within a tight routing yet we are accustomed to this paradigm.  A course on 150-200 acres, in itself, probably demanded numerous compromises simply to make a routing work.  If you were on 3,000 acres, and had a wonderful site for the clubhouse and a world class site for a course, would it make sense to sacrifice either for the mere sake of walking from the clubhouse to the course?  All you have to do is drive (or catch a shuttle) to the golf course and go have fun, and I think that is well worth it if the reward is great. 

Long transitions aren't my favorite either, but I would prefer a little longer walk to a better hole over a walk off to a not very good hole 100% of the time.  I suppose it depends on how long the transition really is...I don't think I'd want to walk a mile between holes no matter how good the next one may be but I'd happily walk an extra 50-100 yards for something special.  Each hole has a beginning and an end, and I'd prefer what's between the two be as exhilarating and fun as is possible.  I'm far less concerned with what is between the holes.

CJ

Chris

I get where you are coming from,  However, shouldn't any archie worth his salt be good enough to create holes where none exist - for the sake of making a tight routing?  I can understand if an absolute stunner has to be kicked to the side for the sake of a one bad walk, but I wonder if that is often the case - pretty is my bet.  I guess I fall on the side of make the routing tight and get the archie to make up the difference - otherwise his salary is cut   

Sweet Lou

You got the wrong guy. I am not overly keen on jacket & tie club lunches.  I do them when necessary, but I am happier sticking with a  club sandwich and a decent pint.

Ciao

[Chris Johnston]

Steve Blake,

Old Macdonald has a small pro shop right at the first tee, as do the other courses at Bandon. There is no packing up the golf cart at some remote location then trekking out to the first tee in a golf cart.  And since carts are prohibited anyway, how one arrives at the first tee is of much less importance.

Chris Johnston is trying to make it seem like the main hotel at a large resort is the equivalent of the clubhouse at a private club, but that is just not the case.  

David

Nice to see you on the case and, with thanks, I can my my points on my own.  Golf comes in many shapes and sizes and, last I looked, there are NO hard and fast rules for clubhouses and/or courses.  Just a set number of holes (traditionally) and each of those holes has a beginning and an end.  Is there really a big difference from "packing up a golf cart" and packing up to ride a shuttle or in your own car?  Most simply, each requires packing and transport...it isn't the ride, it's the course for me.

wrt to your reference to the small facility at Old Mac, it is little different from Ben's Porch at Sand Hills.  It's a place to get a sleeve of balls, a quick and simple lunch, maybe even a shirt or towel.  The big stuff, both meals and gear, are provided at a main the Clubhouse facility and not real close to Old Mac.  Aside from the public/private and number of courses, Sand Hills and Bandon really are quite similar, and both work quite well.

CJ

[Chris Johnston]

Postulating that all courses should be walkable is like postulating that all nutrition must be consumed using a fork.   

Asserting that you should be able to walk from the clubhouse to the course just eliminated Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes...two very special places.

It's a big world.  Beautiful and wonderful things abound.

Chris

You are missing the point.  Ideally, should the house not be near the 18th green?  Does anybody want the house a long walk from the course?  Does anybody ideally think there should be long walks between holes?  I think compromises are made which creates long walks on courses and to the house.  Sometimes courses are good enough to overcome the compromises; sometimes not. 

Ciao

Hi Sean,

I vote for the best 18 holes possible, always and with no exception.  In many cases, it is a miracle if the best 18 holes happen to be within a tight routing yet we are accustomed to this paradigm.  A course on 150-200 acres, in itself, probably demanded numerous compromises simply to make a routing work.  If you were on 3,000 acres, and had a wonderful site for the clubhouse and a world class site for a course, would it make sense to sacrifice either for the mere sake of walking from the clubhouse to the course?  All you have to do is drive (or catch a shuttle) to the golf course and go have fun, and I think that is well worth it if the reward is great. 

Long transitions aren't my favorite either, but I would prefer a little longer walk to a better hole over a walk off to a not very good hole 100% of the time.  I suppose it depends on how long the transition really is...I don't think I'd want to walk a mile between holes no matter how good the next one may be but I'd happily walk an extra 50-100 yards for something special.  Each hole has a beginning and an end, and I'd prefer what's between the two be as exhilarating and fun as is possible.  I'm far less concerned with what is between the holes.

CJ

Chris

I get where you are coming from,  However, shouldn't any archie worth his salt be good enough to create holes where none exist - for the sake of making a tight routing?  I can understand if an absolute stunner has to be kicked to the side for the sake of a one bad walk, but I wonder if that is often the case - pretty is my bet.  I guess I fall on the side of make the routing tight and get the archie to make up the difference - otherwise his salary is cut   

Sweet Lou

You got the wrong guy. I am not overly keen on jacket & tie club lunches.  I do them when necessary, but I am happier sticking with a  club sandwich and a decent pint.

Ciao

Sean,

Great points!  I would think creation of great holes within tight routings is certainly doable with an unlimited budget and no restrictions, yet I think you will likely have to "fit someting in" the routing due to a host of challenges.  I may be wrong here, but it seems the overwhelming number of newer courses aren't on what we would agree to be tight routings on tightish sites.  Interesting that that could well help define a classic course, regardless of age!

While not speaking to anyone in particular, the only point I have tried to make is it is a big world, and variety can be a good thing.  We all have an opportunity to play what we like, and not play what we may not.  If anyone turns down an invite to experience Sand Hills simply because you ride to or on the course, well that's ok, but you will miss one of the great places in golf.  One person may prize walkability over all else - nothing wrong with that.  Others may prefer a wonderful view - nothing wrong with that.  Still others may want the best 18 holes possible - what's not to like about that!  Finding all three (and probably more) at one place is rare indeed.  Hence, the benefit of a big world!

A very wise man once told me you can find the "connector" hole in most every tight (or not) routing if you know what to look for...a hole that really doesn't fit but was needed to get to the next place, maybe even to a stellar finish at the clubhouse.  I often wonder, how many good courses would be great without any constraint (site, budget, terrain, etc.) at all.  Imperfection is beauty in golf.

I'm not a qualified architect and claim no learned expertise, but it also seems if you begin with a first tee and an 18th green site (at or not at a clubhouse) you have begun the journey already constrained.  To build something great with constraints is a mastery of art that few have really achieved.  That's why we can pick nits here.

It may be a novel thought, but I really want the best 18 holes.  If I have to walk a bit farther for it, I'm in.  If I have to ride to it, I'm in.  If I have to ride on it, I'm in.  If I have to walk a bit between holes to have it, i'm in.  Then again, that's just me    It's also ok not to particularly like something, but one may miss something special with hardened notions. 

I don't want to eat a milkshake with a fork.  In the rare cases my wife allows me to have one (or if I sneak one), I'd prefer a straw or maybe a spoon. I certainly don't want to forego milkshakes altogether because of being wedded to a fork.

CJ

[SL_Solow]

David;  Hard cases often make for bad law. But I am not so sure that Sand Hills is really a hard case.  Somewhat out of the ordinary perhaps.  But if one applies core principles, it is not really an outlier.

 I suppose that we might question how important the clubhouse is to golf architecture?  On a traditional site with limited acreage, a large separation between the clubhouse and the course is both infeasible and likely wasteful.  But at a property like Sand Hills, which is very walkable once you get to the course, I am not at all offended by having to ride from the clubhouse to the practice tee and first tee,  From there, the course is self contained and walkable.  It does not distract from the experience for me.

As to Chris' point, I think it is a matter of degree.  Many architects have talked about the importance in routing of creating "connecting" holes by which great sites for holes are made into a course  by utilizing less attractive grounds as connectors.  Often, real creativity is needed to make certain that the connectors live up to the rest of the course.  But it is often these connecting holes that make the golf course something more than a collection of good (great) holes and give it a sense of flow.  That is my principal objection to Chris' formulation.  If the main criterion is always to select the best 18 holes and if the property is big enough, we could theoretically end up with 18 one hole courses connected by roadways.  In Florida, the reason for such disjointed routings was to expand the number of lots with golf views.  But this theory can be used to create a similar disjointed effect merely to get great holes.

Obviously, I have taken my friend Chris' position to an extreme.  But if I recal correctly, Coore and Crenshaw noted that there were a vast number of natural holes at Sand Hills.  They didn't pick the best 18, rather they picked the best 18 that fit together.  So while i share Chris' preference for great golf holes (who doesn't?) and I am not adamant about walking  despite my ardent support for caddie programs, I think we buld better golf courses when we take into account that the experience is enhanced when the golf course is a unified whole and not a series of unconnected challenges.  I think we have a better chance of that when the course is walkable and the holes are in close proximity.  I think that is one of the reasons that the old classics, whether they are in Scotland, Ireland. the Heathlands, Sandbelt or here in the US have such an appeal.  They afford a wonderful challenge but they also exude a sense of place which derives at least in part from their routings which relate the holes to one another.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I am with Sean on all points.

And for what it's worth, I'd rather sacrifice the odd great hole for a more coherent, walkable whole.

[DMoriarty]

Here, the notion of great architecture (or of a great course) implies for some a set of individual holes (the 'best possible' 18 holes the site could yield), each with its own beauty and interest and challenge; while for others (including me) it refers to the whole round, the whole journey, the whole experience -- even if it means that the routing includes some so-called transition holes or some holes that might not be considered amongst the best possible. Now, I'm not so knowlegable, talented or enamoured with my own opinions about golf holes and their greatness that I insist on the 'best possible 18 holes;' I wouldn't know them if I saw them. So, while I'm not a religious walker (and will gladly take a cart under some circumstances/conditions), I can't and have never been able to understand how long carts rides out to the 1st or back from the 18th or between one green and the next tee don't negatively impact the whole journey and the whole experience. Does that mean that the architecture and the course are not as great as they might've been? I guess the answer for me is 'yes'.

Peter, I agree with the notion that a golf course is much more than just a collection of the "the best 18 holes possible," or at least it ought to be. You call it the "whole round, the whole journey, the whole experience" and that is probably a good way of putting it. I think of it in terms of coherence, cohesiveness, and connectedness. A well-structured narrative. And the so-called "constraints" (like green to tee proximity) aren't arbitrary limitations, but rather are time tested tools designed to keep the narrative flowing and the story together. Otherwise the round becomes disjointed, whether the golfer is riding or walking.

So in my opinion it goes well beyond just whether someone can possibly walk a golf course, or not.  It goes to what a golf course is.  The best cart ball courses I have played are those that were designed for walking, because they worked as golf courses and not as a loose collection of individual holes.  
_______________________________________________

As a fellow member of the Golf I A Big World sect, I marvel at how some downgrade modern golf courses for longer distances from green to tee while at the same time, 75-100 yard walks at classic era courses- e.g. CPC's from 14 to 15 and from 15 to 16- are seen as wonderful transitions building suspense and excitement in anticipation of what's to come.

Lou,  I think perhaps this is another example of trying to use a great golf course to justify crummy architecture. Cypress Point is a pleasure to walk from beginning to end, and except for these two transitions the greens and tees are pretty much right next to each other.  Regarding these two transitions, somehow I don't think two short strolls along Cypress Point's coastline are long transitions worth complaining about.  

Maybe we should set up a CPC Standard:  Tees must be placed adjacent to the previous green unless the transition to the next next tee is as beautiful as the walk from the 14th green to the 16th tee at CPC, and the hole at the end of the transition is as compelling CPC 16.

[DMoriarty]

Shelly,

The ride to the course at Sand Hills doesn't offend me either, nor does it detract much from my experience.  I am not really talking about my experience at Sand Hills, but rather about the impact that remote starts have on walking generally. 

Whenever you put a golfer in the cart you are increasing the likelihood that the golfer will stay that cart for the round. I don't mind when golfers choose to ride, but I prefer design elements that encourage walking over riding, and these remote start (and/or remote finish) courses seem to encourage riding over walking.   

As for the rest of your post, I agree with all of it.

[Chris Johnston]

David;  Hard cases often make for bad law. But I am not so sure that Sand Hills is really a hard case.  Somewhat out of the ordinary perhaps.  But if one applies core principles, it is not really an outlier.

 I suppose that we might question how important the clubhouse is to golf architecture?  On a traditional site with limited acreage, a large separation between the clubhouse and the course is both infeasible and likely wasteful.  But at a property like Sand Hills, which is very walkable once you get to the course, I am not at all offended by having to ride from the clubhouse to the practice tee and first tee,  From there, the course is self contained and walkable.  It does not distract from the experience for me.

As to Chris' point, I think it is a matter of degree.  Many architects have talked about the importance in routing of creating "connecting" holes by which great sites for holes are made into a course  by utilizing less attractive grounds as connectors.  Often, real creativity is needed to make certain that the connectors live up to the rest of the course.  But it is often these connecting holes that make the golf course something more than a collection of good (great) holes and give it a sense of flow.  That is my principal objection to Chris' formulation.  If the main criterion is always to select the best 18 holes and if the property is big enough, we could theoretically end up with 18 one hole courses connected by roadways.  In Florida, the reason for such disjointed routings was to expand the number of lots with golf views.  But this theory can be used to create a similar disjointed effect merely to get great holes.

Obviously, I have taken my friend Chris' position to an extreme.  But if I recal correctly, Coore and Crenshaw noted that there were a vast number of natural holes at Sand Hills.  They didn't pick the best 18, rather they picked the best 18 that fit together.  So while i share Chris' preference for great golf holes (who doesn't?) and I am not adamant about walking  despite my ardent support for caddie programs, I think we buld better golf courses when we take into account that the experience is enhanced when the golf course is a unified whole and not a series of unconnected challenges.  I think we have a better chance of that when the course is walkable and the holes are in close proximity.  I think that is one of the reasons that the old classics, whether they are in Scotland, Ireland. the Heathlands, Sandbelt or here in the US have such an appeal.  They afford a wonderful challenge but they also exude a sense of place which derives at least in part from their routings which relate the holes to one another.

Shel,

Agree with you 100%.  It's all a matter of degree, proximity or, maybe, materiality. At Sand Hills, Bill and Ben didn't just pick the 18 that fit together, they picked the best 18 that they could fit together...and they has some wonderful ground in which to work.  Also agree that on any golf course the holes must fit together and flow, materially unconnected holes would certainly affect flow, and I question if a clubhouse should fit at all.

There are obvious extreme outliers some could share, but I'm glad thoise are not the norm.  Even then, they may meet the needs of those who wish to play them.

Lucky for us, there are several ways to "have" a course, and we have a choice of which we may prefer.  I'm strongly pro choice here...as long as people find enjoyment, who am I to judge?

CJ

[Pete Lavallee]

I played an intresting course yesterday which had a hole on the back 9 listed as a 300 yard par 4 or a 165 yard par 3; I couldn't figure out why they would do such a thing. Well when we got to the hole it all made sense. You drive up a steep and winding path to the tees which are benched into the side of a mountain. I almost drove the green from the 290 yard tee. There is an electric signal at the start of the path with either a red or green X, indicating whether it is safe to drive up the narrow path. Those choosing to walk the course simply tee off on the par 3 tees from near the previous green and skip what would be an impossibly arduous hike.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Asserting that you should be able to walk from the clubhouse to the course just eliminated Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes...two very special places.
...

I don't get the Bandon Dunes reference. The only course there not near its clubhouse is Shorty's. Does Shorty's need a clubhouse?

Garland,

I'd guess the first tee at Old Mac is almost a mile from the Bandon Dunes clubhouse on a straight line, and probably more than a mile if one were to walk.  I recall (and could be mistaken) that the central driving range is a good walk from most first tees.  That's why they have a shuttle...to get people where they want to go. I have no problem with this, but believe it to be accurate.

CJ

Yes, but it's right next to the Old MacDonald clubhouse. Do you go to the Bandon Dunes clubhouse to check in for play at Old MacDonald?
Do you go to the Dismal River clubhouse to check in for play at Sand Hills?

A better example would be Chambers Bay where you check in for play at the clubhouse on the top of the hill and then ride a shuttle down to the course starting nearly at sea level. If you wanted to walk to the first tee, #9 would have to be the first hole.

[Garland Bayley]

Chris,

Your right I would rather have a longer walk to a better hole than a short walk to a weak hole. But I am still not a fan of hill climbing throughout the round.

Steve Blake

Steve,

Me too, but would that not limit our ability to play really good but hilly courses?  Old Mac has some "huffers" but I'd play it again.

CJ

"huffers" from green to tee. BAD
"huffers" within a hole if not too extreme. GOOD
OM 3 GOOD
OM 7 GOOD
OM 14 GOOD
OM 15 GOOD
OM 16 VERY GOOD
OM 17 GOOD

[Chris Johnston]

Chris,

Your right I would rather have a longer walk to a better hole than a short walk to a weak hole. But I am still not a fan of hill climbing throughout the round.

Steve Blake

Steve,

Me too, but would that not limit our ability to play really good but hilly courses?  Old Mac has some "huffers" but I'd play it again.

CJ

"huffers" from green to tee. BAD
"huffers" within a hole if not too extreme. GOOD
OM 3 GOOD
OM 7 GOOD
OM 14 GOOD
OM 15 GOOD
OM 16 VERY GOOD
OM 17 GOOD

Agree!  Huffers are good. huffers are huffers.

[Garland Bayley]

... CPC's from 14 to 15 and from 15 to 16- are seen as wonderful transitions building suspense and excitement in anticipation of what's to come.  ...
   

OMG! GMWAS!

Where on earth are you going to find two cart rides that would build equivalent suspense?
Most get orgasmic just thinking of going to CPC, and you think some cartball can compete?
 

[Tom Yost]

I shall nominate the Canyon Course at Ventana Canyon in Tucson, AZ, the only course I've played that requires a map to negotiate the cart ride from the 9th green to the 10th tee.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()