VK:
I can tell you that I have often looked back on my designs and thought that we could not have built some hole or feature, if we'd had to deal with cart paths.
Example 1: holes 10 & 11 at Pacific Dunes. There is no place for a cart path to go that you're not going to see it like crazy from #10 tee and occasionally bounce off it onto #11 tee. And we actually did dig back the dune to the right of #11 to allow for some maintenance traffic up that side or in case they ever succumbed and went to golf carts, but it would look awful if it was a real path.
Example 2: Ballyneal #3. The only place for a cart path would be to ledge it in above the green on the left, or way way around to the right. There are probably four or five holes at Ballyneal that would have had to change to accommodate a cart path.
So -- yes we can design for cart paths. Tom Fazio does it all the time. It's one reason his courses are limited.
TD,
Not that it matters because I know of other examples like the ones you cite, but I've never visited either locale. I'm not doubting your word or that a well regarded design by its well regarded designer will have ...many, many, many times...five great things, styles, utility, cost... that a cart path might interfere with... and so is eschewed.
1. But first you're citing the look "see it like crazy"...I still agree that's for your expert eye, for the client's paying eye and maybe even 99% love of the visitor's eye. But it's still a personal aesthetic preference and doesn't impugn carts or cart usage in toto on other holes, on other courses. Who am I to question; you're the creator; but if you can say either instance at those two examples would be lesser regarded, less satisfying, less worth it because of the installation of cart paths in those spots, then how flimsy is the cloth that separates satisfactions and discontents.
1a. I'm not trying to jump on your every word, but look how you say "ever succumbed" to golf carts...succumbed to what... economy? rejected players anger? ideologically? If it's the latter, then what the hell
2. And I was not suggesting wall - to wall cart paths...there doesn't have to be such to accommodate carts (although an unsatisfactory combo of cart path and design stands to curtail the benefit of paths only in wet conditions)...to my mind they should be as minimally used as is practical to the property and the routed course upon it. You might answer "Well then, what about high wear areas where all traffic must go....?" To which I answer... what about them? I've played Fisher's close to 15x and not once have I given critical thought to the rough cart wear areas all over that property, right near tees and greens... and that course is a rugged walk and is completely facilitated by some of its winding, arcane, neglected and circuitous cart paths...which do not at cover the course completely... Yale and CC of Fairfield are two other nearby Top 100 examples whereby the circumferential roughness of not having cart paths finds little critique in the experience.
3. Both the appearance and frequent opportunity to be ricocheting off the ubiquitous freeway of cart paths seems to have little bearing that HarbourTown "
is rightly famous among American courses for marking a turning point in the history of golf architecture, away from the Trent Jones school to the Pete Dye school, and there are an enormous number of good strategic holes despite the flattish ground and lack of total length " By quoting you, I'm not "gotcha" suggesting you didn't have reservations and that PD wasn't miffed that it was received in higher praise than other designs...I'm just saying its voluminous cart paths (on a course that could easily be walked by most) have little meaningful bearing on whatever HarbourTown is (like so many other peeves, itches, or "golf/gca is fundamentally THIS" statements).But that was only one tiny part of what I had to say... what about the other 14/15ths... do you agree that1. The "multiple hidden costs" theory is empty?2. And even if it wasn't, the cost would easily be passed on in the form of modestly increased rates?3. That carts are a large profit center for owner operators?4. That such profit centers are essential to the health of 95% of courses that cannot curate their experience?5. And that such health is "Good for Golf"?6. And that Carts are Good for Golf should have its detracting quotes removed?
And one more Tom...
What is the greater injustice? The man who pays $500 to play in an outing to a particular course and finds he must ride?
Or the scores of old, infirm people I've observed at a certain Westchester NY course, who paid $800 and were turned away from playing at all, medical or not, because there was a 1/4" of rain that ended seven hours ago, and the Super calls carts (on a course which drains a hurricane and whose fairways run at
- when asked for dispensation lights up a cigar and says, "Fuck em' Golf is a Walking Game."?
Who is more humiliated in their simple seeking to enjoy a round of golf? The player who expresses shock and displeasure at being forced to utilize a cart...but walks alongside as much as he can, as his partner drives? (After all, I'm told walking is just as fast or faster than the cart, so he'll keep up)... Or the man who must announce he needs a cart? (thank god that medical shit is for the members of the clubs themselves and no staff member would challenge a visiting/guest player claiming it, even if they were visibly hale of health or lying).