Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jim Engh on September 21, 2009, 04:10:03 PM
-
Greetings Boys - sorry for my recent lack of communication. Just want to weigh in on a topic from a little while ago.
*DISCLAIMER* - the last time I tried to make a post, it took Commission Gordon with the Bat Light to get things straightened out. I will try to do better, but no promises.
Thought of the day: "when you choose to be a rebel, you can't be offended when someone has a differing opinion"
I hope to share my views on a few things and then leave it to you veterans to do with them as you wish. These are only MY thoughts and impressions.
My view of the industry can be described as follows..."There are no absolute right answers, only opinions of absolute right answers and if your opinion is not the right answer too often, your out of business".
Cart Paths-
It seems to me that all of you have a partially correct position as to my opinion regarding cart path design, just not the entire perspective. It is simply a matter of degrees. Do I prefer to look for the best golf holes first? Yes. Woud I make a 2 mile transiition from one hole to the next to incorporate a feature into the course? No. Would I make you walk up a 0ne foot incline to incorporate a wonderful grove of trees into a hole? Yes. Obviously, somewhere in the middle is the correct answer. And each situation has many other factors.
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. 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 thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course. Now, if it is a flattish piece of land that I have been given, the factor of walking is a much bigger consideration. For example, at our new project in the snad hills of Nebraska, called Awarii Dunes, I have set a paramount on walking. Cart paths will be green to tee only and consist of a mixture of native sand and small gravel. Tee placements have been located for ease of access from the previous green. I am very pleased to be able to take this position, still I suspect that we will have a significant amount of cart use. Unfortunately, that is the way things are.
Having said all of that, I would like to make one thing very clear. I DO NOT DESIGN THE CART PATHS FIRST AND THEN PUT IN THE GOLF HOLES. Although never actually stated, some of the accusations were coming very close to such silliness. However, once the golf holes are placed and designed with the ultimate of priority, I do infact put a great deal of effort into making the experience from the cart path the best it can be. As a professional, I must recognize and consider that a majority of players will experience my creation from the seat of a cart. To ignore that reality, would be foolish and unprofessional. It sort of sounds foolish to say that "I am going to do a really poor job on the cart paths because I don't like carts".
Let me put it this way to the business people out there. You have opened this great new Chinese restaurant, here in the US, that is intended to support your family. The food is the best in the state. 70% of your customers prefer to use a fork as opposed to chop sticks. Do you stand your ground and go out of business because forks are not traditional? Or do you give them nice quality forks with a great dining experience and have happy customers?
An interesting side note: at Lakota Canyon we were faced with a storm runoff of 1200cfs ( thats a lot of water coming very fast). We were faced with having to put $2 million worth of storm pipe under the 5th fairway to accomodate the water. Obviously, as the total construction budget for the course was around $3.5 million that was not going to work. We were very close to pulling the plug on that project. Then we thought it might be possible to put in small pipe for naormal flows and have the rest of the storm water run down the cart path after the detention area filled. That is why there are berms beside the cart paths on holes number 1 and number 5. Cart path actually saved the project.
BOWLS -
Question: If bowls make every shot so easy, why do my courses still slope out at 135 - 145?
Answer: Because I have intentionally, sckewed the spectrum of how the game is played and where and how the difficulty is presented. Much as it is played in Ireland, your mind must be "turned on", because the shots that are required do not fit into the "American mold" of how the game is played. Certainly, many times these "bowl" shots will kick into the green, possibly right beside the hole. More likely, you will have a putt that requires the depth of thought to that of a chip shot, with several options and breaks. If your ball does not kick down you are faced with a very difficult and creative down hill chip shot, to a down hill slope, that can be played several different ways. Maybe your ball hit the green and kicked through into one of those "thinking mans chip shots." I feel that golf in America has become very similar to itself. And for many years the game has been played in a dictacted spectrum. After many years of trying to determine in my own mind, why I love playing in Ireland, I finally came to the conclusion that it is the fact that my brain is fully "turned on" for the entire time on the course. Endorphins (sp?) are flying through my brain and I am taking in the land and having to figure out how to hit these ridiculous shots that are so much fun. I am never once, able to "coast" through a hole without having to have my brain totally intuned to what is going on around me. I am trying create a different and fun way to play the game here in America. This includes all settings, not just the ones that look like Scotland and Ireland.
I certainly do not expect all of you to embrace what I do. But I would hope that those that care about the game will view my work void of aggenda.
-
Jim E. -
Thanks very much for your thoughtful and informative comments. Comments on this board from people who are actually making a living (for themselves, their families and their employees) designing and building golf courses are invaluable.
Don't let the peanut gallery get you down!
DT
-
Greetings Boys - sorry for my recent lack of communication. Just want to weigh in on a topic from a little while ago.
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 thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.
Thanks Jim
Thanks for your post. It is always nice to get a fresh perspecitive based on real experience.
I have never played any of your courses but I am somewhat surprised by the assertion that cart paths between holes "create a much more powerful golf experience." I question how often that is the case on otherwise walkable terrain.
While I understand that it is a matter of degree, I have always assumed that cart paths between holes were generally for the purpose of accomodating housing rather than for finding the best golf holes. Often I have taken long cart rides to play a hole down a tunnel of housing. When I have found powerful golf holes after a long cart ride, it generally has been on severe terrain that would not be walked except by a nut.
Do you have some examples of courses that turned out to be very interesting, but would have been less so had they been designed to accomodate walking.
-
I feel that golf in America has become very similar to itself. And for many years the game has been played in a dictacted spectrum.
Deep thoughts worthy of a separate thread.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas, Jim.
-
Greetings Boys - sorry for my recent lack of communication. Just want to weigh in on a topic from a little while ago.
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 thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.
Thanks Jim
Thanks for your post. It is always nice to get a fresh perspecitive based on real experience.
I have never played any of your courses but I am somewhat surprised by the assertion that cart paths between holes "create a much more powerful golf experience." I question how often that is the case on otherwise walkable terrain.
While I understand that it is a matter of degree, I have always assumed that cart paths between holes were generally for the purpose of accomodating housing rather than for finding the best golf holes. Often I have taken long cart rides to play a hole down a tunnel of housing. When I have found powerful golf holes after a long cart ride, it generally has been on severe terrain that would not be walked except by a nut.
Do you have some examples of courses that turned out to be very interesting, but would have been less so had they been designed to accomodate walking.
Not to put words in Mr. Engh's mouth, but as I read it the statements you quote were predicated on the site being mountainous or rolling terrain, and the question was whether to create the best possible course or a "walking" course. He referenced Sanctuary, Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon as courses that were either to be cart courses or not built at all. Had those courses been built so that all could walk, they might well be far less interesting than they are.
-
Great post Jim!
-
Greetings Boys - sorry for my recent lack of communication. Just want to weigh in on a topic from a little while ago.
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 thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.
Thanks Jim
Thanks for your post. It is always nice to get a fresh perspecitive based on real experience.
I have never played any of your courses but I am somewhat surprised by the assertion that cart paths between holes "create a much more powerful golf experience." I question how often that is the case on otherwise walkable terrain.
While I understand that it is a matter of degree, I have always assumed that cart paths between holes were generally for the purpose of accomodating housing rather than for finding the best golf holes. Often I have taken long cart rides to play a hole down a tunnel of housing. When I have found powerful golf holes after a long cart ride, it generally has been on severe terrain that would not be walked except by a nut.
Do you have some examples of courses that turned out to be very interesting, but would have been less so had they been designed to accomodate walking.
Not to put words in Mr. Engh's mouth, but as I read it the statements you quote were predicated on the site being mountainous or rolling terrain, and the question was whether to create the best possible course or a "walking" course. He referenced Sanctuary, Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon as courses that were either to be cart courses or not built at all. Had those courses been built so that all could walk, they might well be far less interesting than they are.
A.G.,
This is also how I interpreted Jims comments as well. I guess it comes down to personal preference if one prefers to:
1) Walk and play a so-so course that is a tough walk.
Or -
2) Ride and play a good to excellent course that is very difficult to walk.
-
Great stuff Jim. It is contributions from you and others like you that make this site what it is.
I can't wait to visit True North next summer.
Thanks
Jason
-
While I think Jim's post is great, I do have one quibble.
I don't think the argument is that you must make a course walkable at all cost, even if it means building an inferior course - which certainly can apply where the land is severe.
However, what we see over and over again is even when you have a relatively flat land, a priority is given to cart and cart paths that hurts the course design and end up with an inferior course.
I really don't think any of us here would argue that a course like Stone Eagle should have not been built or should have been a lesser course by forcing walkability. I think the walkers are lamenting the fact that even when walking is viable, it is tossed aside too easily by today's designers.
-
However, what we see over and over again is even when you have a relatively flat land, a priority is given to cart and cart paths that hurts the course design and end up with an inferior course.
I really don't think any of us here would argue that a course like Stone Eagle should have not been built or should have been a lesser course by forcing walkability. I think the walkers are lamenting the fact that even when walking is viable, it is tossed aside too easily by today's designers.
Regarding your first sentence, when has Jim ever done that? I don't think he has. I also don't think you were accusing Jim of doing it, but others on the site have come darn close. Can you give us examples of "flat courses" that are inferior because of carts or cart paths?
Regarding your second sentence, can you - or anyone else - point to a walkable site that Jim pushed aside wakers in building?
-
...
Let me put it this way to the business people out there. You have opened this great new Chinese restaurant, here in the US, that is intended to support your family. The food is the best in the state. 70% of your customers prefer to use a fork as opposed to chop sticks. Do you stand your ground and go out of business because forks are not traditional? Or do you give them nice quality forks with a great dining experience and have happy customers?
...
You need a better example. Using chop stick takes considerable training and practice. Whereas, everyone thinks they can drive a cart.
-
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your post - it is great to remove the "interpretation" from the previous threads and actually get your opinion from you - especially concerning how you think about building courses depending on the terrain.
For those trying to put words in Jim's mouth about trying to build "walkable" courses on terrain that was barely buildable never mind walkable, please take note.
Jim - While I am a passionate walker, I do appreciate and respect your "realism" in regards to the business of building/designing courses on challenging terrain that is unwalkable and moderate terrain that could be walkable but may lead to an inferior course.
While I think this area - moderate terrain that could be walkable - is where a lot of the walking/cart debate lives, I understand your line of thinking although I may not agree with it depending on the site (not that it matters).
Do you have any examples of courses that were probably a 50/50 proposition between walkers/carters and decided that the advantage of building a cart golf course was not actually worth it (meaning the flexibility in routing would not have improved the design) - so you decided to build the walking friendly course (that obviously golfers could take carts on as well)?
Or do you think that given the chance to build a walking friendly course or a cart golf course (on a site that is clearly not totally ideal for walking), it is always easier or better to go the cart route (ie - if the developer was to leave the decision entirely up to you)?
Finally, if a walking golfer who tries to avoid cart only courses was interested in getting a feel for the Jim Engh school of design, which of your courses would you recommend? ie) which of your courses blend many of your favorite design traits or styles so a golfer can get the full buffet experience at one or two venues (whether walkable or not)?
Best of luck on your project in Nebraska - it must be nice to work with less severe terrain from time to time and I am very excited that it will be a very friendly layout for walkers.
-
...
Let me put it this way to the business people out there. You have opened this great new Chinese restaurant, here in the US, that is intended to support your family. The food is the best in the state. 70% of your customers prefer to use a fork as opposed to chop sticks. Do you stand your ground and go out of business because forks are not traditional? Or do you give them nice quality forks with a great dining experience and have happy customers?
...
You need a better example. Using chop stick takes considerable training and practice. Whereas, everyone thinks they can drive a cart.
Considerable training and practice?! To use chop sticks?! Any idiot with an opposable thumb can learn to use chopsticks in two sittings max.
-
While I think Jim's post is great, I do have one quibble.
I don't think the argument is that you must make a course walkable at all cost, even if it means building an inferior course - which certainly can apply where the land is severe.
However, what we see over and over again is even when you have a relatively flat land, a priority is given to cart and cart paths that hurts the course design and end up with an inferior course.
I really don't think any of us here would argue that a course like Stone Eagle should have not been built or should have been a lesser course by forcing walkability. I think the walkers are lamenting the fact that even when walking is viable, it is tossed aside too easily by today's designers.
Richard,
Isn't this two separate issues? Again, the original post has sites that are NOT relatively flat as the basic premise.
We've all seen courses on relatively flat sites that are difficult, if not impossible, to walk simply because housing drives the development. That really isn't a GCA matter per se, though, is it? When those of us that like to walk are "tossed aside too easily" it tends to be by developers, not designers.
I can think of a few courses where there is little or no development, and yet the course was designed in a way that makes walking difficult. Tobacco Road, unfortunately, leaps to mind; I love the place, there isn't any housing, and it is pretty flat, but hardly walking friendly. But courses like that are the exception; the vast majority of the time the long green-to-tee stretches that we hate so much are about housing, not holes.
-
Jay,
I think Rich was speaking generally, not about Engh courses specifically.
Flat land that would have been just fine for walking is turned into cart golf all the time.
Where the game loses out the most is when courses are designed exclusively for cart golf instead of at least giving the golfer a chance to make a decision (I realize this does work both ways, but let's be honest it is pretty much a one way street).
When Doak speaks about constructing Stone Eagle - he readily points out that a lot of the course is very walkable - I think Mr Ferlicca can corroborate this - thus a severe site was turned into a golf course that requires a cart but is actually quite walkable for much of the round (if one decided to do so which is a very small minority).
Also, when RCCC is discussed, it would appear that many architects would have taken the site and made it into a cart golf course but Doak did not, and from all the feedback that has been presented on the site it looks like an incredible place.
I think this is where the "medium terrain" site presents an interesting debate - Can an architect design a great course for BOTH the walker and the cart taker? And is it worth doing so if the percentage of walkers will be 25% or less ? (I certainly hope so in the future)
At least give the golfer a choice.
-
I know he wasn't, ROb, but I am speaking to those who seek to demonize Jim and spread the false rumor that he throws walkers under the bus...and stop that false rumor that he said "he designs for the 90% in carts" when he never said that or meant that at all.
-
...
Let me put it this way to the business people out there. You have opened this great new Chinese restaurant, here in the US, that is intended to support your family. The food is the best in the state. 70% of your customers prefer to use a fork as opposed to chop sticks. Do you stand your ground and go out of business because forks are not traditional? Or do you give them nice quality forks with a great dining experience and have happy customers?
...
You need a better example. Using chop stick takes considerable training and practice. Whereas, everyone thinks they can drive a cart.
Considerable training and practice?! To use chop sticks?! Any idiot with an opposable thumb can learn to use chopsticks in two sittings max.
Any idiot that does not know much about the challenges of eating all types of food from the cultures that use chopsticks would make such a statement. I did not read Jim meaning to refer to chop suey joint.
-
Jay, I was certainly not talking about Jim's courses as I have not played any of Jim's design (I REALLY want to, I almost did earlier this year at Fossil Trace, but no tee time was available :( )
As Rob has said, I am talking generally, and I can certainly come up with many examples within 30 miles of where I live.
-
However, what we see over and over again is even when you have a relatively flat land, a priority is given to cart and cart paths that hurts the course design and end up with an inferior course.
I really don't think any of us here would argue that a course like Stone Eagle should have not been built or should have been a lesser course by forcing walkability. I think the walkers are lamenting the fact that even when walking is viable, it is tossed aside too easily by today's designers.
Regarding your first sentence, when has Jim ever done that? I don't think he has. I also don't think you were accusing Jim of doing it, but others on the site have come darn close. Can you give us examples of "flat courses" that are inferior because of carts or cart paths?
Regarding your second sentence, can you - or anyone else - point to a walkable site that Jim pushed aside wakers in building?
Sorry Jay, but clearly he has.
(http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j282/bokuhan_hagaromo/ColumbiaPoint031.jpg)
-
However, what we see over and over again is even when you have a relatively flat land, a priority is given to cart and cart paths that hurts the course design and end up with an inferior course.
I really don't think any of us here would argue that a course like Stone Eagle should have not been built or should have been a lesser course by forcing walkability. I think the walkers are lamenting the fact that even when walking is viable, it is tossed aside too easily by today's designers.
Regarding your first sentence, when has Jim ever done that? I don't think he has. I also don't think you were accusing Jim of doing it, but others on the site have come darn close. Can you give us examples of "flat courses" that are inferior because of carts or cart paths?
Regarding your second sentence, can you - or anyone else - point to a walkable site that Jim pushed aside wakers in building?
Sorry Jay, but clearly he has.
(http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j282/bokuhan_hagaromo/ColumbiaPoint031.jpg)
I have walked Pradera every time I have played it with no problem whatsoever. The notion that Pradera is unwalkable is overrated!
-
...
I have walked Pradera every time I have played it with no problem whatsoever. The notion that Pradera is unwalkable is overrated!
Curious post, since neither Pradera, nor unwalkability were being discussed.
-
Jim - thanks. I know you focussed on two specific areas, but your post reminded me of something that I've been thinking about quite a bit lately, i.e. that any present-day architect who is worth his/her salt is essentially re-configuring and/or transmuting the principles of good golf design orginally manifested in the great golf courses of England, Ireland and Scotland -- much like, for example, Pete Dye envisioned a way through which classic/fundamental playing angles and risk-reward equations and unforgiving shot-testing could be reproduced -- but re-fashioned -- for the modern, big-money, television game of professional golf in the creation of TPC Sawgrass. And If THAT is what a golf course architect is trying to do in a new design, I think the only fair-minded critique is in terms of whether or not the goal was accomplished. Subjective and aesthetic tastes and judgments and preferences certainly have their place, but not I don't think in the context of deciding whether an architect has done his/her job properly and skillfully.
Peter
-
Cart Paths-
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 thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.
Jay - Read Jim's post. I cannot understand why you are determined to say that Jim does not design cart golf courses if 1) that is clearly what the terrain calls for or 2) the terrain could lead to a walking course or cart course, but the cart course would be more compelling in his opinion and he thinks 90% of people will ride anyways.
He clearly explains his line of thinking and I certainly appreciate his candor.
I don't recall anyone ever stating that if given the chance to build a great walking course on a flat to undulating piece of land, Jim would give walkers the finger and design a cart golf course because he thinks everyone rides anyways?
-
Very cool post, Jim.
A few unrelated questions. Weren't you working on one of the Irish courses? Is that project still on, and if so, how is it coming?
Also, any new courses you can tell us about?
-
Cart Paths-
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 thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.
Jay - Read Jim's post. I cannot understand why you are determined to say that Jim does not design cart golf courses if 1) that is clearly what the terrain calls for or 2) the terrain could lead to a walking course or cart course, but the cart course would be more compelling in his opinion and he thinks 90% of people will ride anyways.
He clearly explains his line of thinking and I certainly appreciate his candor.
I don't recall anyone ever stating that if given the chance to build a great walking course on a flat to undulating piece of land, Jim would give walkers the finger and design a cart golf course because he thinks everyone rides anyways?
Because you and other s have this ridiculaous notion of "cart golf" as anything that isn't eminantly walkable by a 103 y/o in his Depends undergarments drinking Ensure. You think there is some bright line between a cart course and a walking course even though on your own website you have a striated color coded system that I dont think you use enough in your own ratings. Redlands a green? You have to be kidding redlands was a tough walk! It's easily an Orange, maybe a red.
Saying "it's a cart course" has this overly-haughty, summariliy dismissive air about it that can lead people to a wrong conclusion, and having a "cart course or not" attitude is unfair to the designer. Jim is here: why don't you ask him if he designs cart golf courses or not? And then because he has one or two tough designs, people lbrand him and dismiss his new work out of hand. Maybe Black rock or Lakota are, tough walks but red Hawk? Fossil? Blackstone? Creek club? No chance, they are much easier. There are plenty of older members at Creek Club and they have no problem walking, I saw them myself, and they all like the course a great deal.
-
Jay,
Don't put words in my mouth - I have NEVER claimed that a walkable course means some guy wearing depends can walk it. Are you out of your mind? I did say that at a certain point a course becomes unwalkable and turns into cart golf. Does it not?
That is why on TWG.com there are "levels" of walkability - Easy, Manageable, Tough and Essentially Unwalkable - Most courses are walkable provided they let you do it and you are determined to do so (and fit).
There is however, a line between a "cart golf" course and a "walkable" course - that for me is a Red - where everyone will walk the course because it was designed to be "essentially unwalkable" - at least at an Orange you have a choice, although that is probably the line where 90% of golfers will choose to take a cart.
Since I have not won "powerball" or inherited a ton of cash - which would allow me to play and rate every course in the country - I have asked the Society members and the public to assist the site in rating courses for walkability - if a course is rated improperly then my hope is that someone will see it and correct the rating. This has happened a few times already. Thanks for providing your input on the Redlands rating - I will look into it - as you can imagine, assistance is much appreciated as this is a fairly daunting project.
The goal of the "walkability ratings" is to let the public know what type of walk to expect if they play a course. This is a service to ALL golfers, not just those who only like to walk.
Jay,
Read my posts - I have asked Jim several questions about his decision making process and look forward to reading his responses.
Again - who are you battling against here - Jim has stated that in certain situations he will build a "cart golf" course as opposed to a "walkable course" because 90% of the consumers will be taking a cart anyways.
What is wrong with building a "cart golf" course if an architect believes it is 1) the only option or 2) will maximize a challenging property that may not be walkable anyways? And if the architect builds a course that is unwalkable then what is wrong with calling it a cart golf course? That is what cart golf is!
What is the "wrong conclusion" that you are refering to here?
I would hate to show up at a course thinking it is walkable to find out that 1) I am not allowed to or 2) it has never been done before
Jay,
As a reminder, I have NEVER stated that Jim is a "cart golf" only designer so don't try and put those words in my mouth along with the incorrect statement you made about my thoughts on what makes a course walkable.
-
Greetings Boys - sorry for my recent lack of communication. Just want to weigh in on a topic from a little while ago.
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 thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.
Thanks Jim
Thanks for your post. It is always nice to get a fresh perspecitive based on real experience.
I have never played any of your courses but I am somewhat surprised by the assertion that cart paths between holes "create a much more powerful golf experience." I question how often that is the case on otherwise walkable terrain.
While I understand that it is a matter of degree, I have always assumed that cart paths between holes were generally for the purpose of accomodating housing rather than for finding the best golf holes. Often I have taken long cart rides to play a hole down a tunnel of housing. When I have found powerful golf holes after a long cart ride, it generally has been on severe terrain that would not be walked except by a nut.
Do you have some examples of courses that turned out to be very interesting, but would have been less so had they been designed to accomodate walking.
Not to put words in Mr. Engh's mouth, but as I read it the statements you quote were predicated on the site being mountainous or rolling terrain, and the question was whether to create the best possible course or a "walking" course. He referenced Sanctuary, Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon as courses that were either to be cart courses or not built at all. Had those courses been built so that all could walk, they might well be far less interesting than they are.
A.G.
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. My quote did not refer to mountanous courses, but rather courses on sites of intermediate terrain that could be walkable. On such sites, he suggests that there is a trade off between quality golf holes and walkability. Please see the green language above.
-
Robb: You wrote:
"Again - who are you battling against here - Jim has stated that in certain situations he will build a "cart golf" course as opposed to a "walkable course" because 90% of the consumers will be taking a cart anyways. "
He never said he would build a cart ball course...it's others here who use that term and put it in his mouth.
I know you have your colorcoded system...but I went through your site and think you dont emply it enough...there are plenty of courses you mark as green that are tougher walks than just an easy stroll...and other courses that you have i red that are somewhat beasier than that...but that's beside the point. The argument is against the perjorative term "cart golf" when it is misused.
-
Greetings Boys - sorry for my recent lack of communication. Just want to weigh in on a topic from a little while ago.
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 thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.
Thanks Jim
Thanks for your post. It is always nice to get a fresh perspecitive based on real experience.
I have never played any of your courses but I am somewhat surprised by the assertion that cart paths between holes "create a much more powerful golf experience." I question how often that is the case on otherwise walkable terrain.
While I understand that it is a matter of degree, I have always assumed that cart paths between holes were generally for the purpose of accomodating housing rather than for finding the best golf holes. Often I have taken long cart rides to play a hole down a tunnel of housing. When I have found powerful golf holes after a long cart ride, it generally has been on severe terrain that would not be walked except by a nut.
Do you have some examples of courses that turned out to be very interesting, but would have been less so had they been designed to accomodate walking.
Not to put words in Mr. Engh's mouth, but as I read it the statements you quote were predicated on the site being mountainous or rolling terrain, and the question was whether to create the best possible course or a "walking" course. He referenced Sanctuary, Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon as courses that were either to be cart courses or not built at all. Had those courses been built so that all could walk, they might well be far less interesting than they are.
A.G.
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. My quote did not refer to mountanous courses, but rather courses on sites of intermediate terrain that could be walkable. On such sites, he suggests that there is a trade off between quality golf holes and walkability. Please see the green language above.
Jason,
I don't want to quibble and I did make a mistake in my first post by referencing three courses incorrectly.
The language of the original post, which you highlighted in green, implied that the terrain was not flat, but moderate and that a walking course would be "possible". I take that to mean "possible but tough", and those are courses that most golfers don't walk, ever. (Hell, most golfers won't walk across the parking lot with their clubs after they ride 18 holes on the flattest course in America!) Engh's contention is that you go ahead and built the best golf course possible, in which walking might be sacrificed for quality and the sales engine; he believes that 90% of the players will be riding anyway, so it becomes an easy choice.
I don't think he is talking about flat sites inside subdivisions that we see turned into cart-only courses everyday in order to sell more houses, which you and I both hate, or so I would assume. I think when he uses the term "moderate" to describe the terrain, he is talking about something else entirely, and I shouldn't have used Sanctuary and the others as examples; they would be extreme terrain where walking is out of the question. But to a guy who has built courses on sites like those, "rolling" and "moderate" might well mean something a little more extreme than usual.
BTW, I'm a dedicated walker, and am dismayed by mandatory carts and unwalkable courses. I am equally dismayed by the minute % of golfers that I see walking even on courses that are easy walks by any standard; I think Engh's guess of 10% is much too high.
-
Thanks, Jim. Great post.
I think the terrain has so much to do for it. I love to walk, but the Engh course I play, Hawktree, that's hard to do. The elevation changes dictate it, as does the walk "out" of most holes. Could that have been different, I suppose so, but it wouldn't have been as good a hole. I love the walk, but I know many, many who love to ride. Great courses don't have to be one or the other, like HT. Another example I can think of that I've played was C and C's We Ko Pa Saguaro. We rode it, but I could see how it was designed to be walked. Big difference is that is some pretty flat land. Again, thanks Jim.
-
Quote from Jim:
"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 thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course."
Jay - Please help me out here - I am trying to understand what you are saying, I am not trying to be an AH about this - Are you saying that a "mostly cart course" in Jim's words is not a "cart golf" course?
Jim said that in a 50% walkable situation 90% of golfers are likely to take carts - and I certainly believe him. That is in a 50% walkable situation. So by building the "mostly cart course" it becomes a 100% cart course which is "cart golf". How is this faulty logic? Do you prefer the term "mostly cart course" to "cart golf course"?
Where is the putting words in someone's mouth here - tell me where I am not representing what Jim said?
Let's continue:
- the land in questions is moderate and "possible" to create a walking course
- the architect must decide to make a less exciting or fun course that is walkable for 50% of the players (we'll call it an orange) - or a "mostly cart course" that is a better experience in the architects eyes (and a better sales engine for the client) which would be a red.
- Jim then says that, again, if a course is 50/50 you will likely get 90% of golfers riding - so he makes the "mostly cart course" which is an easy decision in his mind because it is a "better course" - I can understand where Jim is coming from and never said that I couldn't.
Again - Jay - In terms of the ratings - I do not fly all over the country playing these courses - the site is a low budget affair with a part-time staff of one (but a growing membership - hollah!) - the ratings are based on the public who are generous enough to take the time and fill out the course listing form and rate the courses. There will be inaccuracies at an early stage - that is when the standard deviation will be at its greatest because the sample size is small at this point. Over time, the standard deviation will tighten up and the ratings will become more accurate. You seem to have played a lot of courses, I would welcome your feedback, especially on the courses that are "wrong". The Walkability Ratings are a WORK IN PROGRESS and not everyone will agree with every rating.
-
Jim,
Thanks for your insightful comments. You seem to be under the slightly misguided assumption that the people here realize that golf courses are, in fact, a business. Customers should be required to pass a chopsticks test before being allowed in the restaurant.
-
I know he wasn't, ROb, but I am speaking to those who seek to demonize Jim and spread the false rumor that he throws walkers under the bus...and stop that false rumor that he said "he designs for the 90% in carts" when he never said that or meant that at all.
Jay,
Count me among those confused. Mr. Engh writes that when faced with a choice of finding a better hole (in his view, of course) or ensuring walkability in a routing, he sacrifices walkability because if a course is walkable for 50%, 90% will take a cart. So, yes, it can be said that he designs for the 90% in carts. That doesn't mean he isn't thinking about the quality of the hole (as he sees it); it means that he's very prepared to sacrifice walkability, especially on some of the difficult sites on which he's worked. So, I really don't understand the "false rumor" allegation. (P.S. is there a more tired phrase than "throw [blank] under the bus"?)
Jim, thanks for the post.
-
Mr. Engh,
Thanks for the post and for your past posts and threads as well. Having just read them recently, I am impressed with your honest and informative comments. I especially enjoyed the thread on whether “natural” should be the ultimate goal of golf design, and may even try to resurrect it at some point. To my mind it was a great example of the kind of questions we should consider more often. While I still don't think I agree with much of your approach to course design, I understand it better after reading your thoughtful comments.
As for your post today it is again refreshingly honest and frank, and you have my appreciation and respect for again addressing the criticisms levied against you. Lord knows with the level of success you have attained, you don't owe me or anyone else any sort of explanation. So thanks for humoring us.
I hope to address the substance of your post soon, as time allows.
Thanks again,
David.
____________________________
Jay,
Mr. Engh is an able communicator, so instead of trying to spin his words why don't you just let him speak for himself?
-
Jim
Many thanks for your short article, extremely straight to the point and honest.
Nevertheless reading your post, I feel it is more inline with a Scottish lament or an epitaph on the Great Game of Golf.
I speak only for myself although no doubt, the political correct Golfing Brigade on GCA.com will chime in with their waffle and condemnations, but then that is the price we pay for freedom of speech. Pity that freedom does not always extend to Walkers on a Golf course.
I am labelled as a traditional golfer by many which seems to allows them to believe that it gives them the right to ridicule my thoughts, opinions and to introduce some of the most unbelievable comments along the lines that I should stick with Hickory shafted clubs and the old Gutta balls (well, some words to that effect). I view myself as a Golfer, I honour the game as it was taught to me and why I have played it ever since. By definition being, a Golfer (IMHO) means that I walk. I do not use Caddies, nor am I keen on carts (although I did try them when they first appeared here in the UK - having tried and disliked the remoteness of experience/feel, I have never used them since). I also do not use distance information apart from the scorecard, I never use distance books, markers or electronic aids, believing that we, the golfers have that ability to judge distance given to us at birth. So, I view them as outside aids, as is a cart which keeps a golfer refreshed by not walking, having said that you would think it would actually help some golfers but you would be wrong, the real result is to further isolate the golfer from the actual game of golf.
So having given you an idea of where I am coming from, it probably will not surprise you when I say that I feel that every Architect, designer or course planners first duty to the Game (not the clients) is to honour the basic tradition of the game, that is to walk. Not to offer that simple basic Human Rights of Golfing leaves the owner/developer and architect open to their commitment to the Game of Golf. With out walking you are NOT PLAYING GOLF, nor are you really designing a Golf Course. What do you call it Cart Ball Golf, so the course should be declared a Cart Ball Golf Course.
I hope you realise this is my own personal opinion and that I am not judging the quality of your courses or cart ball courses as I have no experience of the American game. Nevertheless, I would like to make my final comment based upon you statement (please note the highlighted lines)
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. 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 thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.
Now, if it is a flattish piece of land that I have been given, the factor of walking is a much bigger consideration. For example, at our new project in the snad hills of Nebraska, called Awarii Dunes, I have set a paramount on walking. Cart paths will be green to tee only and consist of a mixture of native sand and small gravel. Tee placements have been located for ease of access from the previous green. I am very pleased to be able to take this position, still I suspect that we will have a significant amount of cart use. Unfortunately, that is the way things are.
Please excuse my ignorance, but why should a golf course design be less exciting/fun if walking or much more powerful experience for carts. Sorry I just cannot get my head around that statement. It seems to imply that golfing with a cart is a different game to Golf and that your design takes into account that underlining fact, yet you say you do not consider cart paths in the initial routing/design.
I am not trying to be pedantic, just trying to understand why a course needs to be different and more powerful if designed for a cart. Are you saying that on all other courses which allow carts and walking the Carter has a more powerful experience from just sitting in his backside, than the Walker who has the ability and time to study all the GCA and beauty of landscape before him/her. Carts can also be dangerous even on gentle slopes as shown by Kalen’s accident earlier this year (sorry can’t find a copy of the photo).
I am from an old golfing family, who have played the game in the normal manner for centuries (walking), through that I believe some of us have a deep association with the game in Fife and for me TOC, New Course, not to mention St Andrews.
I hope you take my comments in the way they are intended and not disrespectful or an attack upon your person, as I am unable to convey a tone of interest in my writing.
Again, many thanks for your post it’s from these posts that the debate can move forward.
Melvyn
-
Mel,
Just like I cannot comment accurately about the experience of the first tee at TOC, stepping over sheep fences at Brora, or a good single malt served by a man speaking with a proper brogue, you do not have the requisite experience needed to properly opine on the finer points of the "cart ball" experience on mountainous terrain in America. And quite frankly, until you have played courses like the ones Mr. Engh designs, you cannot understand his illustration of a "powerful" golfing experience.
Now, I will say this. I haven't played any of Mr. Engh's layouts. But I have played my share of mountain golf in Colorado and California. I can assure you that many of these projects wouldn't be financially feasible without carts. Simple as that. I guarantee that Stone Eagle wouldn't have been a successful project if it was walking only. And Tom would've been forced--at least in theory--to alter the routing and overall experience if carts weren't a consideration.
What's more Mel, I think you miss the point of Mr. Engh's article when you say this:
Please excuse my ignorance, but why should a golf course design be less exciting/fun if walking or much more powerful experience for carts.
Your point forgets the crux of the article. The properties that Jim Engh is siting as examples in his article are better served as "cart ball" golf courses. Period. If he made those properties into courses that were even remotely walkable by 25% of the folks on the tee sheet, he would have been ditching superior individual golf holes in favor of shorter green to tee transitions, less elevation change, and generally less interest. Remember, we're talking about the Rocky freakin' Mountains here Mel.
Break--Break--
I do appreciate Mr. Engh's involvement in the ongoing arguement. And if I were him and read some of the things written on this site regarding his work, I would probably not be as civil as he has when posting. But to broaden the view somewhat. Here is my general and overarching take on the article. (An aside. I haven't played a single Engh design. I respect his success in the business and his obvious talent for articulating the difficulties in his sites. But as I have said elsewhere, I do not agree with the direction it takes golf.) Why are we building golf courses in some of these places? If so many problems in golf are tied to overinflation, bloated, "bells and whistles" golf clubs and courses, why are we so infatuated as a golfing public with these courses. It's almost as if Mr. Engh's prowess at building mountainous golf courses has belied the fact that it produces a product that, IMHO, is at the root of what's ailing the game. I hope I'm not off base in suggesting that Lakota Canyon and Redlands Mesa would be tough to support financially without real estate involvement. Isn't that part of the problem we're facing? That all too often, golf has become an amenity and not the focus?
Then again, there's always the Big world theory, it takes all kinds, it's still a business, blah, blah, blah. I get it. We've beaten that Secretariat more than twice.
-
Ben,
As one who has played 4 of Enghs layouts, all of them mountainous in nature, I would agree that his efforts were done well and he's built some fantastic holes. When one stands on the 3rd tee at Black Rock, or the 17th at Redlands, or the 5th at Sanctuary and you're not feeling anything, you need to have your pulse checked....and this is just to name a few.
P.S. Do you also believe a course like Stone Eagle should not have been built? Do you think this course also "ails the game" due to it mountainous and unwalkable nature? Or how about Highland Links at Cape Breton? Its also "mountain golf" and a tough walk from what I've read?
-
Ben
Did you actually read my post?
So we are agreed Cart Balling is not the real game of Golf but indeed something called Cart Ball Golf. Also both requiring different course designs.
Just interested, tell me do you hit the ball harder in cart Balling, do you use Greens in the normal way - walk to them and over them? Whatever, it still requires two different designs, fine I have no problem with that - Cart Balling is not Golf, its Cart Balling, so lets be honest and call it Cart Balling to stop confusion.
I do not think I have misunderstood Jim's thread, perhaps just seeking clarification.
Melvyn
-
...
Your point forgets the crux of the article. The properties that Jim Engh is siting as examples in his article are better served as "cart ball" golf courses. Period. If he made those properties into courses that were even remotely walkable by 25% of the folks on the tee sheet, he would have been ditching superior individual golf holes in favor of shorter green to tee transitions, less elevation change, and generally less interest. Remember, we're talking about the Rocky freakin' Mountains here Mel.
...
Ben,
I'm sorry, but you apparently don't realize that you that you are critcizing Melvyn for not having the experience to make his statements, but then you do the same! You do not have the experience of designing a course in the "Rocky freakin' Mountains" so you do not know what you are talking about.
I have not designed a course either, but let me give you a couple of points to ponders. I played a course in the Rockies that had many uphill green to tee transfers, but yet the best hole on the course was one of the only two or three playing uphill. That is not just my opinion, it was a hole featured on their website.
I recently played Indian Canyon which was built before carts, and which played on severe terrain, and I believe most architects would be extremely hard pressed to create a better course with the aid of carts.
-
...
P.S. Do you also believe a course like Stone Eagle should not have been built? Do you think this course also "ails the game" due to it mountainous and unwalkable nature? Or how about Highland Links at Cape Breton? Its also "mountain golf" and a tough walk from what I've read?
??? You must be reading different things than I am.
-
Kalen,
Some tough questions there. It's been an amazing string of courses I've seen in quite a short period of time this year. I've played golf and/or discussed the game with MANY people in the past five months that I trust nearly implicitely in their opinions on architecture, the game itself, and the current state of the business going forward. The list is pretty humbling for me actually. I've met more important "golf people" than important "aviation people" if you can believe that.
The opinions I have are rooted in a collection of facts and opinions told to me by those folks. In regards to your questions:
1) I respect and admire nearly ALL GCA. That is to say I realize that I--at least at my current intelligence level--could never do what they do.
2) Which is to say that I like only about 20% of it. Stuff that 90% od people think is good, I find fault or compromise in. Ask Wyatt Halliday about our trip to Newport Dunes, or our heated discussion on the bunkering in the center of the 8th at Kingsley.
3) Stone Eagle was a great golf experience. It has some memorable holes. The course itself, top to bottom, is above average for sure. But what I consider great about SE is it's location, it's "new age" connection of grasses between holes, and it's recovery options. As far as the property? Only a filthy rich individual could see a golf course there. And it took two very, very talented people to make it any good. Should it have been built? It's absurd to think it should not have been. But as is the same with some of the other courses I've mentioned, I think there are options for great golf courses at lower cost on land more suitable. That's all.
The question for me is not can we build a golf course on the moon, but should we? George Thomas didn't need much at Riviera, just a barranca and some of the first earthmoving equipment. Look at the five most satisfying golf experiences you've ever had. Was the severity of the terrain a factor in any of them? Did the cost of the construction matter at all to you?
Mel,
Alright friend, I don't want to ride this merry-go-round again. I just get dizzy and puke after awhile. My point is this. You say walking is what makes the experience powerful. I say it is superb golf holes. For Jim Engh to get superb golf holes on many of his sites, carts are nearly the only option for the casual American golfer. Okay, that's all I was saying. You took an article about cart paths and severe sites and made it about the experiential differences between carts and walking. Can we dispense with "cart balling"? Tell you what, just for you, I'll call it cart ball from now on. And the other 25-30 million or so golfers in America will continue to call it golf.
-
I am labelled as a traditional golfer by many which seems to allows them to believe that it gives them the right to ridicule my thoughts, opinions and to introduce some of the most unbelievable comments along the lines that I should stick with Hickory shafted clubs and the old Gutta balls (well, some words to that effect)- Melyvn Morrow
No one is ridiculing you, they just hammer back at your incessant demand that the only game in town is yours. Stick with your traditional game, no one wants to rob you of it, but golf has moved from it's traditional location, the links, into territories that are much different, and that move fostered some changes. It seems entirely plausible that the men who moved golf inland so long ago would be accepting of the men who moved golf into the parks, the mountains, and the deserts. Even your ancestor took accepted a modern approach to equipment, when that equipment did force changes onto the game.
So, it's in your blood to be understanding of the men who take chances and approach their work from slightly different angles, like a Jim Engh. You should be out there applauding someone who, like OTM, saw a slice of the future and wasn't scared by it.
-
...
Your point forgets the crux of the article. The properties that Jim Engh is siting as examples in his article are better served as "cart ball" golf courses. Period. If he made those properties into courses that were even remotely walkable by 25% of the folks on the tee sheet, he would have been ditching superior individual golf holes in favor of shorter green to tee transitions, less elevation change, and generally less interest. Remember, we're talking about the Rocky freakin' Mountains here Mel.
...
Ben,
I'm sorry, but you apparently don't realize that you that you are critcizing Melvyn for not having the experience to make his statements, but then you do the same! You do not have the experience of designing a course in the "Rocky freakin' Mountains" so you do not know what you are talking about.
I have not designed a course either, but let me give you a couple of points to ponders. I played a course in the Rockies that had many uphill green to tee transfers, but yet the best hole on the course was one of the only two or three playing uphill. That is not just my opinion, it was a hole featured on their website.
I recently played Indian Canyon which was built before carts, and which played on severe terrain, and I believe most architects would be extremely hard pressed to create a better course with the aid of carts.
Bayley,
I'l reply to each paragraph seperately.
1) From now on you are no longer allowed to comment on a meal you have eaten unless you prepared it yourself. But, you are allowed to comment on the quality of a meal in Thailand just by looking at pictures of it and seeing what the chef wrote about it on his website. See, unlike Mel, I've played mountain golf. Lots of it. And I know that to make those sites walkable would be to compromise the integrity of the routing. Even though I didn't cook the meal.
2) That was a point well made. Until you made the website "featured" hole comment. ;D
3) Indian Canyon in Spokane? I played it three years ago when I was at survival school and I didn't think it was that severe. Or at least not as severe as say, Stone Eagle.
-
... See, unlike Mel, I've played mountain golf. Lots of it. And I know that to make those sites walkable would be to compromise the integrity of the routing. Even though I didn't cook the meal.
...
I don't care if you have played lots of mountain golf. You have not designed and built golf courses in mountain terrain. According to your criteria applied to Melvyn you have no more credibility stating "to make those sites walkable would be to compromise the integrity of the routing" than you claim he lacks in making his statements.
Not to mention that you also say you are not intelligent enough to create a golf course yourself. ;)
I haven't been to Stone Eagle, so I cannot comment other than I understand there is a slightly shortcutted version that is eminently walkable. I also have the impression that the weather is considered part of the reason for carting there.
-
I had contemplated sending my post via IM to Jim as I was interested to learn more and understand, but that’s not generally the way for a blog site.
The problem is that we do not understand, we don’t have time to understand, we don’t even want to try to understand each other, The old saying ‘if you do not know, ask’, is long dead and buried. The policy of shooting first and ask question later is coming to the forefront. What a way to live.
Some questions and opinions make others puke. Beautiful, makes you wonder if we have any future at all on this or any other world.
What a wonderful world, full of the milk of human kindness and consideration
Melvyn
-
... See, unlike Mel, I've played mountain golf. Lots of it. And I know that to make those sites walkable would be to compromise the integrity of the routing. Even though I didn't cook the meal.
...
I don't care if you have played lots of mountain golf. You have not designed and built golf courses in mountain terrain. According to your criteria applied to Melvyn you have no more credibility stating "to make those sites walkable would be to compromise the integrity of the routing" than you claim he lacks in making his statements.
Not to mention that you also say you are not intelligent enough to create a golf course yourself. ;)
I haven't been to Stone Eagle, so I cannot comment other than I understand there is a slightly shortcutted version that is eminently walkable. I also have the impression that the weather is considered part of the reason for carting there.
So I'm guessing that my self-deprecation was missed on you. Oh well.
I disagree with you principally on the fact that Mel commenting on mountain cart ball when he has never even seen it is the same as me saying that making those courses more walkable would be to compromise good golf holes. Because, as mentioned, I've seen them. Hello McFly?? ;D It didn't take an Ivy League degree to see that massive earthmoving coupled with considerably unnatural appearances would result from making the site more walker friendly. But like you said, I didn't design, so how could I possibly understand that.
-
Jim, great to have you posting. A true artist and class act.
-
I had contemplated sending my post via IM to Jim as I was interested to learn more and understand, but that’s not generally the way for a blog site.
The problem is that we do not understand, we don’t have time to understand, we don’t even want to try to understand each other, The old saying ‘if you do not know, ask’, is long dead and buried. The policy of shooting first and ask question later is coming to the forefront. What a way to live.
Some questions and opinions make others puke. Beautiful, makes you wonder if we have any future at all on this or any other world.
What a wonderful world, full of the milk of human kindness and consideration
Melvyn
Melvyn, you're 100% right. So in order to understand, please fly over the US and visit Stone Eagle next July. If you walk and carry 36, I'd be willing to bet every participant on this website will call golf in the US "cartball".
Until then, you're blowing in the wind.
-
... I've seen them. Hello McFly?? ;D It didn't take an Ivy League degree to see that massive earthmoving coupled with considerably unnatural appearances would result from making the site more walker friendly. But like you said, I didn't design, so how could I possibly understand that.
Hello McFly?? ;D Who's talking about massive earthmoving? Did Egan do massive earthmoving at Indian Canyon? Did Doak do massive earthmoving at Stone Eagle? Do you build a great uphill hole by doing massive earthmoving to build the hill?
Your assignment is to read Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course, and then come back and make your argument.
-
Melvyn, you're 100% right. So in order to understand, please fly over the US and visit Stone Eagle next July. If you walk and carry 36, I'd be willing to bet every participant on this website will call golf in the US "cartball".
Until then, you're blowing in the wind.
Why does he have to do that? The USGA has labeled it cartball, so technically he is already right. The USGA says if you are not walking you are not playing golf! Melvyn simply is in compliance with the USGA! How more American can he get?
:P
;)
-
Ben,
Thanks for your reply,
I think you also ask a really good question in just because one can build a course, does that mean they should do it? As for mountain courses, I've been able to play more than my fair share of them living in Utah and having travelled to most of the states out West. I think mountain courses should be given a good hard look in determining if they should be built because I'm guessing contruction costs and irrigation costs are that much more. But I don't see this issue being unique to mountain courses, I see it applying to any course.
Some mountain courses are based around a model of housing, and some aren't. Just like same is true for just about any other genre of golf course.
If a course uses a model that works financially for them, this is almost always the bottom line when asking if it should be there or not. If one wants to build a flat, easy to walk course, in the middle of nowhere, then the question still must be asked, how will the finances work. Whether it be a private model or housing model, or by using a dirt bare bones construction cost model, however it can be done is really up the owners. In the same vein, if a mountainous, difficult to walk course model works, then I don't see the issue with that....because it fits right in with the big world theory, and I agree with the concept.
-
DID ANY OF YOU ACTUALLY READ MY POST – I was asking questions trying to learn, replying to Jim’s statement and asking for clarification. Yet, even when I am trying to understand and learn you pour out all your old crap, get a life and grow up.
I am trying to understand why, does the powerful experience come from the panoramic view, or is it the way you Tee off, play the Green or ride up the Mountains. I said I do not know and also said that I based my comments on Jim’s statement. If the routing needs to be different in the mountains for carts why not down on all the other courses which share Walking/Carts. I said that Jim would have to excuse my ignorance, which clearly you and others are not.
Clint, I have always wanted to visit and play a few games in the USA, to trace my great grandfather and his brothers (two who remained in the States) footsteps in Georgia & Alabama. To visit the house my great grandfather had built in 1875 and where my grandmother was conceived. Today it’s still there, known as The Hunter House still on 2nd Street Darien Georgia.
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/TheHunterHouseDarienUSABuiltforEliz.jpg)
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/JamesHunterGraveatStAndrews.jpg)
Yet due to the quality of the comments from many across the pond, I fear that that trip will never happen as I see very little in the way of human kindness. However, I would love to meet our Mr Gray & Mr Garland, if not for a game certainly for a truck load of beer with a few Single malts thrown in.
Melvyn
-
Yet due to the quality of the comments from many across the pond, I fear that that trip will never happen as I see very little in the way of human kindness.
That is the most ridiculous thing I've read on this website. Which is saying a lot. Furthermore, I doubt there are any flights in/out of your own myopic world, so the thought is moot.
The only way to experience mountain golf is to play it. Though I fully doubt your commitment to learning about it here on GCA, no words can describe it fully if you are indeed sincere.
-
... Furthermore, I doubt there are any flights in/out of your own myopic world, so the thought is moot.
...
Clint,
Thanks for that bit of human kindness.
::)
-
I had contemplated sending my post via IM to Jim as I was interested to learn more and understand, but that’s not generally the way for a blog site.
The problem is that we do not understand, we don’t have time to understand, we don’t even want to try to understand each other, The old saying ‘if you do not know, ask’, is long dead and buried. The policy of shooting first and ask question later is coming to the forefront. What a way to live.
Some questions and opinions make others puke. Beautiful, makes you wonder if we have any future at all on this or any other world.
What a wonderful world, full of the milk of human kindness and consideration
Melvyn
Melvyn, you're 100% right. So in order to understand, please fly over the US and visit Stone Eagle next July. If you walk and carry 36, I'd be willing to bet every participant on this website will call golf in the US "cartball".
Until then, you're blowing in the wind.
I agree 100%. However we all know Melvyn will never come to the United States, because that would mean he would have to put his money where his mouth is.
-
Okay - before we spin off on a tangent never to return - here is a request to Mr Engh to please, when he can find the time, answer some of the questions that have been asked on the first page of the thread.
Actually hearing an architects thoughts and opinions from that architect is extremely interesting and appreciated!
I am especially curious about the decision making process on pieces of land that are 50/50, but where a Cart Golf course will produce a superior golfing experience (as far as Jim is concerned), and whether Jim has ever been in a situation where he decided to make a walkable course instead of a "mostly cart course" because the aesthetic, quality and experience advantages of cart golf were not enough to take away the walking option for golfers who would choose to do so.
Also - Jim - Are we out of our minds, in your opinion, to see Golf (walking golf) and Cart Golf as two different games with two different experiences?
Thanks in advance if you have the time to answer any of these questions.
-
I may be all wet, but I think Melvyn is trying to say that despite the good reasons connected with the terrain or housing developments for using carts, this type of golf still undermines some of the core values of the game and architecture itself.
Melvyn - if I am correct - please outline for me what those core values are. I too wondered about the statement of Jim's deciding to go whole hog for cart golf when less dramatic possibilities existed that would have been more walker friendly. Having walked a few nasties in my time, I think I know where Jim is coming from. He could just about make the course walkable, but many walkers may try it once and come to the conclusion that the course is a terrible walk. Consequently, Jim's design is left in a no man's land of not really walkable and failing to take full advantage of what is essentially cart golf site.
Ciao
-
... I've seen them. Hello McFly?? ;D It didn't take an Ivy League degree to see that massive earthmoving coupled with considerably unnatural appearances would result from making the site more walker friendly. But like you said, I didn't design, so how could I possibly understand that.
Hello McFly?? ;D Who's talking about massive earthmoving? Did Egan do massive earthmoving at Indian Canyon? Did Doak do massive earthmoving at Stone Eagle? Do you build a great uphill hole by doing massive earthmoving to build the hill?
Your assignment is to read Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course, and then come back and make your argument.
That's the point friend. You just said that Egan and Doak didn't go crazy moving dirt. And hence, their severe site is less walkable for that reason. If they had tried to make the course more walkable... you get it ;)
Bayley, please, give an inch. It's not a hard argument to give in to. My case centers around a central theme of this; It is clear that to make a course like Stone Eagle more walkable, that Tom and Eric would've had to do two things. Change the routing considerably, or move a crap load of dirt. That's it. Nothing more or less. I am not speaking only about uphill holes, or down hill, or forced carries or shelved in greens and tees. But ALL of the above.
I think I remember Tom (on tape or on here somewhere) stating that deciding to route SE up and down the mountain was one of the tougher decisions they made regarding the site. And that shelving in fairways into the side of the mountain just wouldn't have been good enough. That decision most certainly made the course less walkable, no?
As for the book. I've read it twice and I don't know why you think it applies here. Seems like I might have been picked as your annoyance du jour, a la our departed friend Barney. So I hope you enjoying this.
-
If it is possible to describe mountain golf with carts as "Cartballing", perhaps it's equally useful to describe the same experience without carts as "mountaineering with golf clubs."
-
... Furthermore, I doubt there are any flights in/out of your own myopic world, so the thought is moot.
...
Clint,
Thanks for that bit of human kindness.
::)
Make no mistake, I don't care if Melvyn wishes to visit ME. But don't for a second believe he wants to visit the US. That has been made quite clear in the past, long before my post(s).
-
Instead of wasting too much time with our resident village idiot Melvyn, I would rather get back on topic as the first post by Jim E. was a great one and a perfect example of how a professional questions the amateur peanut gallery and instead of answering, they throw the question back at the professional.
The bottom line is that golf is golf. There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale. In no way is a golfer playing one of Jim's courses in a cart any less of a golfer playing Pac Dunes with a caddie or push cart. While anyone that has played with me knows, I love to walk and play golf...and fast. However if I'm at Stone Eagle in July, or my host is riding, or everyone else in the group is taking a cart (very rare in my usual group), then what's the difference? You're still playing the same golf course, hitting it in the same places, and experiencing essentially the same thing. Golf while riding in a cart is still a hell of a lot better than no golf at all!
We get all worked up with Melvyn not because many of us don't like to walk, but because he is so adament (and insulting towards others) about being a "pure" golfer and that anyone who doesn't play golf exactly like him is disgracing the name of his famous dead great granddaddy Old Tom. While really it doesn't matter at all what Old Tom would do today, or yesterday, or a hundred years ago (esp. when there was no other option than walking). In fact the only reason Melvyn is here is because no one in their right mind would actually listen to his nonsense in the real world...Scotland or elsewhere.
The idea that a course with a riding only policy is any less of a golf course and that we should do everything we can to purposely avoid it is nutso. Of course I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that, but it's not so serious of an issue as many make it nor should it take away from the study of the actual GCA of a course.
-
You all need to keep your grubby mitts off Melyvn. I've already extended an open invitation to come over anytime he likes.
He has a free place to sleep and eat here and I'll even play chaffeur and take him where ever he wants to go. We'll stay up late discussing why desert mountain golf is the wave of the future and I'll introduce him to some fine American beers, not that sissy UK stuff!! ;D
-
The heck with the milk of human kindness, I need Milk of Magnesia after this thread:):)
So much fuss over concrete, indeed!
Are we perhaps getting a little too worked up over all this?
-
If it is possible to describe mountain golf with carts as "Cartballing", perhaps it's equally useful to describe the same experience without carts as "mountaineering with golf clubs."
Steve - I think you are right - rarely will Mountain Golf not be Cart Golf and for those who walk it is either "hiking with golf clubs" or "mountaineering with golf clubs" or "some crazy guy with golf clubs."
But "cart golf" is supposed to describe a course where 1) you have to ride a cart or 2) where a course is essentially unwalkable. Thus, the walking golf experience is not available and the cart golfing experience becomes the norm.
"Cart golf" does not only occur in the mountains, "cart golf" exists on anywhere from flat pieces of land to 50/50 walkable land, and that range includes many courses that are not "cart golf" because of RE development.
Again, I think almost everyone understands why mountain golf courses are cart golf courses - otherwise the course would not be there - it is just the decision making process around 50/50 courses or 60/40 courses, etc. where it would be interesting to know what key decisions make an architect take the "choice" to walk or ride out of the golfers hands and make it "ride only" because the experience and commercial success will be much better.
-
quote Ben Sims
That's the point friend. You just said that Egan and Doak didn't go crazy moving dirt. And hence, their severe site is less walkable for that reason. If they had tried to make the course more walkable... you get it ;)
??? I said that? I thought I said an architect would have great difficulty creating a better course by using golf carts. ??? Please explain how I said what you claim. As for Indian Canyon, look at thewalkinggolfer.com. It is rated green.
Bayley, please, give an inch. It's not a hard argument to give in to. My case centers around a central theme of this; It is clear that to make a course like Stone Eagle more walkable, that Tom and Eric would've had to do two things. Change the routing considerably, or move a crap load of dirt. That's it. Nothing more or less. I am not speaking only about uphill holes, or down hill, or forced carries or shelved in greens and tees. But ALL of the above.
I think I remember Tom (on tape or on here somewhere) stating that deciding to route SE up and down the mountain was one of the tougher decisions they made regarding the site. And that shelving in fairways into the side of the mountain just wouldn't have been good enough. That decision most certainly made the course less walkable, no?
Perhaps you don't understand walkable. Up hill holes are walkable. Putting green to tee barriers in the way is the primary cause of unwalkability. As I said, I have not played Stone Eagle, but I understand there is a short cut that makes walking quite doable. That is leaving out some green to tee walks, but still playing the up and down holes.
As for the book. I've read it twice and I don't know why you think it applies here. Seems like I might have been picked as your annoyance du jour, a la our departed friend Barney. So I hope you enjoying this.
The part that applies is the chapter on routing and handling severe sites. But it is probably not a necessary review now that we know you don't understand walkable. And trust me, you are not Barney, you can never be Barney, so don't even think of trying to be Barney. ;)
EDIT: Removed the website quote mechanism, because it makes many colors barely distinguishable from the quoted text. And, changed the color to blue which should show up well here now.
-
Bayley,
Let's chill a sec. You said they moved less dirt. Then I surmised that on a severe site that sometimes made it less walkable. I never said you said that. I said that based on you saying they moved less dirt.
And I never said I was Barney. I was actually trying to say that you were being a Barney. Because you had picked me as your person to come annoy. So don't yell at me if you're misunderstanding my writing. Maybe I haven't been clear enough in my debate. But your last post was vitriolic and not much fun. All I have ever argued is that subduing a site in order to make it less severe takes away from th individual golf holes and requires more earthmoving. That's all
-
So much fuss over concrete, indeed!
Are we perhaps getting a little too worked up over all this?
No
I think the cart path decision is central to many issues with golf today.
Why would an architect publicly offer to reduce their fee $50k if paths were eliminated?
Jay how much do paths cost? Carts? Maintenance of and surrounding areas and the supporting infrastructure of both?
The WSJ wrote an article about push carts this week.
-
Ben,
Sorry about the red. It was not meant to be vitriolic, nor was I intending to be vitriolic. The unfortunate fact is that many of the other colors just don't stand out in this new website format, and are hardly distinguishable.
"You said they moved less dirt. Then I surmised that on a severe site that sometimes made it less walkable. I never said you said that." Sorry, by the juxtaposition and lack of change of focus in your first statement, I did not understand that is what you meant.
"All I have ever argued is that subduing a site in order to make it less severe takes away from th individual golf holes and requires more earthmoving." I guess I am not making myself clear. I am saying that it may very well be that the site does not have to be "subdued". All along it seemed clear to me that you immediately assumed mountainous sites had to be subdued. That is what I took issue with by giving examples of courses that did not have the site subdued.
-
Instead of wasting too much time with our resident village idiot Melvyn, I would rather get back on topic as the first post by Jim E. was a great one and a perfect example of how a professional questions the amateur peanut gallery and instead of answering, they throw the question back at the professional.
The bottom line is that golf is golf. There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale. In no way is a golfer playing one of Jim's courses in a cart any less of a golfer playing Pac Dunes with a caddie or push cart. While anyone that has played with me knows, I love to walk and play golf...and fast. However if I'm at Stone Eagle in July, or my host is riding, or everyone else in the group is taking a cart (very rare in my usual group), then what's the difference? You're still playing the same golf course, hitting it in the same places, and experiencing essentially the same thing. Golf while riding in a cart is still a hell of a lot better than no golf at all!
We get all worked up with Melvyn not because many of us don't like to walk, but because he is so adament (and insulting towards others) about being a "pure" golfer and that anyone who doesn't play golf exactly like him is disgracing the name of his famous dead great granddaddy Old Tom. While really it doesn't matter at all what Old Tom would do today, or yesterday, or a hundred years ago (esp. when there was no other option than walking). In fact the only reason Melvyn is here is because no one in their right mind would actually listen to his nonsense in the real world...Scotland or elsewhere.
The idea that a course with a riding only policy is any less of a golf course and that we should do everything we can to purposely avoid it is nutso. Of course I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that, but it's not so serious of an issue as many make it nor should it take away from the study of the actual GCA of a course.
Pat Craig,
Beautifully said. Jim Engh's post was a simple, clear, and educational offering from a professional to a group of people who are anything but. If he reads the entirety of this thread, I wouldn't expect him to ever post again; why would a PhD. wish to return to a group of ill-behaved first graders? He made his thoughts and decision-making process clear, and the professional nit-pickers here on GCA have covered it in manure, as so often is the case in the last couple of years.
I, too, love to walk when I play golf. But THE core value of golf for me is that I just love to play the game. So when I find myself in a carts-only situation and faced with the choice of riding or not playing, it is not a choice at all. I play the game. And at the end of the round, when I think back on whatever good shots I might have hit, I NEVER think to myself, "Yes, but I rode..."
Thanks to Jim Engh and the other GCA's out there who find ways to build good and memorable courses on difficult sites for developers who insist on housing and cart paths and all the rest. How exactly more good courses with wonderful golf holes and vistas can be bad for the game escapes me completely. The genie is out of the bottle now; carts are here to stay, and are a critical part of the revenue stream of modern golf. It may be lamentable that every course isn't a links in Scotland, but the game has grown far, far beyond that and will never go back. To think otherwise is exactly comparable to a life membership in the Flat Earth Society.
Walking is important, to the game and to me. It is integral to the game's history, it is fantastically healthy, and quite simply the way the game is best played. BUT it is not THE game, or we wouldn't have clubs and balls and bunkers and all the rest; we would just walk. There is much, much more to golf than a simple walk, or it wouldn't have such a hold over all of us. My experience is that trying to give simple answers to complex questions rarely succeeds and often obscures the truth.
So I'll walk when possible, and ride when necessary for whatever reason. Either way, I'll be playing GOLF and my life will be better for the experience. And if I'm ever fortunate enough to play one of Jim Engh's courses, I'll enjoy the day no matter how I get from one shot to another.
-
A.G. --
Often we have not agreed on a range of topics -- but your most recent post on "so much fuss over concrete" was very well put together and a position I agree with 100%.
Jim Engh courses won't be for everyone -- that includes more specifically those "stuck in the mud types" who label quality golf design in the most narrowest of lights.
Thanks again for highlighting your thoughts.
matt
-
...There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale....
I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that...
You are not making a lot of sense here Pat.
The USGA make a big deal about the difference.
How is it that there is no difference?
-
...There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale....
I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that...
How is it that there is no difference?
Because executing a golf shot is done the same exact way whether you walk or ride.
-
...There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale....
I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that...
How is it that there is no difference?
Because executing a golf shot is done the same exact way whether you walk or ride.
But Michael, you can do that on a driving range.
-
...There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale....
I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that...
How is it that there is no difference?
Because executing a golf shot is done the same exact way whether you walk or ride.
fwiw, the Supreme Court agreed with the last thought and Casey Martin
-
...There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale....
I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that...
How is it that there is no difference?
Because executing a golf shot is done the same exact way whether you walk or ride.
fwiw, the Supreme Court agreed with the last thought and Casey Martin
Is that all that went into the Supreme Court decision? It got to the Supreme Court. There must be an awful lot of people that believe there is certainly more than zero difference.
Discussing the Supreme Court decision goes a bit beyond what is at issue on this thread since it dealt with handicapped access. So I will let this one lie.
-
Bayley,
No worries friend. Colors, like emoticons, do a good job on an otherwise emotionless media of illustrating feelngs. I.e., i thought you were ticked. You're one of the fun guys to debate with. So sorry if I seemed annoyed.
I would love to hear how a severe site can be made more friendly to the hoofers among us without "subduing" or what I'll now call "chopping" the site down. Truly.
-
...There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale....
I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that...
You are not making a lot of sense here Pat.
The USGA make a big deal about the difference.
How is it that there is no difference?
The only person who isn't making sense in this thread is you. Why you have latched yourself to Melvyn and his pathetic cause is beyond me? Perhaps you are the type that really digs his family tree and gospel.
Good for you.
The problem with your posts on this thread (and many many others within the past year along with your buddies Gray and Melvyn) is that you turned it from a discussion of cart paths and design and made it about walking vs. no walking, "pure" golf vs. "cart ball golf."
-
Bayley,
No worries friend. Colors, like emoticons, do a good job on an otherwise emotionless media of illustrating feelngs. I.e., i thought you were ticked. You're one of the fun guys to debate with. So sorry if I seemed annoyed.
I would love to hear how a severe site can be made more friendly to the hoofers among us without "subduing" or what I'll now call "chopping" the site down. Truly.
I am far from a expert, but I think you have already hit upon it. You mentioned that Tom Doak chose to make play go up and down at Stone Eagle.
After the Grudge Match, the next day I walked and played both Indian Canyon in Spokane and Palouse Ridge in Pullman. As you know the play at Indian Canyon is very much up and down, with short green to tee transfers. Being an older course with a limited number of tees helps instead of having to have the current 5 tees that are in vogue so added tees can add distance and probably climbing. Palouse Ridge was just the opposite. You mostly played across the top of a ridge or followed the valley. Therefore, a walker had to climb the hill to get to the tee, or descend a steep hill to get to the tee. The one instance where you played down the hill was an instance where you were forced to climb a big hill to the tee where you got an opportunity to hit a monster drive down the hill and feel good about yourself. As you know at Indian Canyon you got several opportunities to hit monster drives down hill without having to make anything but a short, level, green to tee transfer.
-
...There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale....
I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that...
You are not making a lot of sense here Pat.
The USGA make a big deal about the difference.
How is it that there is no difference?
The only person who isn't making sense in this thread is you. Why you have latched yourself to Melvyn and his pathetic cause is beyond me? Perhaps you are the type that really digs his family tree and gospel.
Good for you.
The problem with your posts on this thread (and many many others within the past year along with your buddies Gray and Melvyn) is that you turned it from a discussion of cart paths and design and made it about walking vs. no walking, "pure" golf vs. "cart ball golf."
Have I latched on to Melvyn or has Melvyn latched on to me? I think neither.
In 1995 the USGA wrote that riding a cart was not golf, it was cart ball. It was the first I heard of it and I latched on to that. Melvyn latched on to something much older.
I disagree with your characterization of what I have been doing on this thread. I simply have been trying to open people's, like Ben's, to alernatives. To the viewpoint that maybe carts weren't used in earlier times and that we may be over using them now.
Also, please don't accuse Anthony Gray of being a purist. He has even been caught on camera playing with his shirt OFF! But, still TUCKED IN!
;)
-
Guys,
What if we steer the debate away from the "if you don't walk then you are not playing golf" line of thinking to -
Is Cart Golf a different experience from Walking Golf?
I had an interesting conversation with a scratch golfer this w/e who playes a ton of tournaments and is definitely an accomplished player. We did not agree on much over the round, which is totally cool, everyone is entitled to their opinions (I firmly believe that Trails is a superior course to Bandon Dunes, to start).
One of the things we really disagreed on was "the walking experience vs riding experience" - he does not differentiate between the two, but I do, I think there is a big difference (again just my opinion).
His thinking was that the game of golf is the same no matter how you play it - you hit your drive, you hit your approach, you make your putt. Whether walking or riding it is the same thing.
While the scoring process is the same - I do not believe that the experience is the same at all for a myriad of reasons that have been discussed in depth on these types of threads.
For this reason, I advocate the design and construction of walking friendly golf courses whenever possible (given a reasonable site of course). This gives the golfer a choice in how they want to experience the game. And gets people exercising, etc. etc.
I am not advocating that people do not play "unwalkable" courses - I also do not recall anyone else saying that on any thread. ie) That course is unwalkable, stay away! If you love the game you should play it wherever and however you want. BUT, cart golf is a different experience than walking golf -
Is it not?
Thus, the question back to Jim from an architect's perspective is - How do you decide which way to go given a site that is 50/50? Is it ever possible to build a "great walking/riding course" or is it always better to design a "great riding course" (is that "nicer" than saying "cart golf" course?)
-
There is clearly a difference between the game as played from a cart and played walking. My perspective is different from Melvyn's, as I see them both as golf, but that's probably easier to say for someone born and raised in the United States on courses where carts have always been an option (an option taken by many (sometimes myself included) regardless of how easily walkable a course might be). For Melvyn, and for many others, one is golf and one is cartball, and one is worth doing and the other isn't. I can understand that perspective. The easiest way to express that feeling is by walking the golf course and avoiding the cart. On this discussion group Melvyn stands up for what he believes and doesn't relent, and calls it the way he sees it. I've felt that he comes across as holier-than-thou now and again, but characterizing him as "the village idiot" strikes me as unfair, and un-called-for.
Here's a few of those "clear differences:"
Walking is exercise. A putt is harder to make if the heart is pounding a bit after an uphill walk. Fitness plays a part in the game. Certainly not the part that it plays in other more strenuous games, but a part nonetheless. The more fit golfer is better able to hit the necessary shots late in a round. For the very fit athlete this may seem like a joke, but for many it makes a difference.
Walking gives me better perspective on distance, and on my next shot. It's like when you go from traveling by car to traveling by train to traveling by airplane.......as the trip gets faster, your perspective on exactly what your covering changes. Golf is a game where distances, and perspective on distance matters.
In golf the venue matters. More than in baseball or basketball or soccer or hockey or tennis........each course is uniquely different. Walking the course is a more connective experience. Riding puts something between you and that experience.
I feel like I'm just yammering on, and not making much sense, but to me these and many other differences between walking golf and riding golf exist. The greater point for each golfer is not whether or not they are different but how important and compelling those differences are. For the scratch golfer Rob mentioned in his post, the differences obviously don't matter so much. I'm more in the middle - I certainly prefer to walk, but have often taken a cart. For many on this board, and Melvyn particularly, using a cart is anathema to the game. For designers of new courses and the owners who are paying them, the use of carts and the inclusions of cart paths in design is complicated and driven by forces I can't claim to know about. For those who renovate existing courses that were built before the advent of the cart, the choice of building cart paths, etc., is a dicey one.
That said, I appreciate Jim Engh coming into this group and letting us in on how he works. I'm sure he knows this is a tough room. Playing his courses, I've never felt like the holes were created with carts or cart paths specifically in mind. For me the cart path is like a referee when watching a football game - if I remember them too much, then something was probably wrong. I can't say I have a strong memory of a cart path on the courses of Jim Engh's that I've played. I do remember a lot of the holes, though. My main design issue with cart paths is when they're too visible, or especially when they cut across the fairway in front of a green. I'm sure in the cases where this takes place there's a reason for it, or a need for it, or something.....but still.
"The grass is always greener when it bursts up through concrete"
-Andy Partridge
-
If there is no difference in Cart Golf vs. Golf, then why is the design of these Cart Balling courses different? Why does the routing need to be altered. As I asked earlier, before all this bitterness set in, yet no one has yet has bothered to explain the reason.
If the games is the same, the yardage is within the same 6,500-7000 yds, the Green the same and the only thing that all say is different is riding a cart why is there a requirement for an alternative design. I am not talking about Green to Tee distance.
If the design is changed for carting and no walking is allowed then say what you want, its not true golf. Scream, shout call me names, still makes no difference its not true golf, by definition the course has been designed for Carts, so Cart Balling is the name of the game.
Melvyn
PS Pat do you ever tire of bring up Old Tom’s name. How many times do I have to tell you that through my Hunter blood I am also related to Charlie Hunter of Prestwick, Robert, John & Jack Hunter, Willie Russack (German Designer), not forgetting George Morris Jack Morris, well I can go on with still a few more names. I make my post clear that it’s my opinions I am discussing. Still upset because you feel that more people read my posts than yours. Christ, I have heard of reasons to hold a grudge but that is one of the most pathetic I have ever come across. GCA.com is not a competition it’s a blog.
-
Kirk,
Thanks for the thoughtful response - I did not think it was yammering at all and it made sense (I would imagine for those who walk, those who walk sometimes and those who ride).
These are the kinds of posts that make the site great to be a part of.
-
As usual, Kirk makes a lot of sense and gets his point across with civility!
A toast to kirk...\_/
(that's a shot glass by the way. Kirk, name your poison.)
-
Kirk,
I will also say Bravo and well done, nicely said. They are indeed different experiences and just because they are different doesn't mean one is "bad" and one is "good"....there are usually only preferences at the end of the day!!
-
exactly Kalen...you can dislike courses that are an easy walk and like courses that are tougher...and vice versa.
-
A.G. --
Often we have not agreed on a range of topics -- but your most recent post on "so much fuss over concrete" was very well put together and a position I agree with 100%.
Jim Engh courses won't be for everyone -- that includes more specifically those "stuck in the mud types" who label quality golf design in the most narrowest of lights.
Thanks again for highlighting your thoughts.
matt
Thank you, Matt.
-
Melvyn, you're 100% right. So in order to understand, please fly over the US and visit Stone Eagle next July. If you walk and carry 36, I'd be willing to bet every participant on this website will call golf in the US "cartball".
Until then, you're blowing in the wind.
Why does he have to do that? The USGA has labeled it cartball, so technically he is already right. The USGA says if you are not walking you are not playing golf! Melvyn simply is in compliance with the USGA! How more American can he get?
:P
;)
In all sincerity, could you reference the USGA labeling riding as cartball? I'm familiar with the walking pledge, and know that the program goes back to 1995, but I'd like to see in print where the USGA said that walking was not playing golf. I've never read that, and would love to see it in black and white.
-
After reading a thoughtful post by Jim Engh, one of the many architects that takes the time to discuss, debate and teach those of us not directly involved in the design business (the majority of the 1500 people on this board), I muddle through almost 4 pages of crap that continues to drive people in the gca business away from here. Thank you to those that tried to continue rational discussion based on Engh's posting.
Boys, many of you are taking yourselves far too seriously.
Ken
-
Melvyn, you're 100% right. So in order to understand, please fly over the US and visit Stone Eagle next July. If you walk and carry 36, I'd be willing to bet every participant on this website will call golf in the US "cartball".
Until then, you're blowing in the wind.
Why does he have to do that? The USGA has labeled it cartball, so technically he is already right. The USGA says if you are not walking you are not playing golf! Melvyn simply is in compliance with the USGA! How more American can he get?
:P
;)
In all sincerity, could you reference the USGA labeling riding as cartball? I'm familiar with the walking pledge, and know that the program goes back to 1995, but I'd like to see in print where the USGA said that walking was not playing golf. I've never read that, and would love to see it in black and white.
You got it AG. It's in the booklet they published to go with the walking pledge.
-
An interesting side note: at Lakota Canyon we were faced with a storm runoff of 1200cfs ( thats a lot of water coming very fast). We were faced with having to put $2 million worth of storm pipe under the 5th fairway to accomodate the water. Obviously, as the total construction budget for the course was around $3.5 million that was not going to work.
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the interesting post. One thing that caught my eye was how low the construction costs were at Lakota Canyon. I believe one of the major precieved drawbacks of mountain golf is the high cost of the course and follow on tho high green fees.
Tom Doak recently provided an interesting cost breakdown for his work at Common Ground. Are you able to provide any more information on the costs at Lakota Canyon and/or mountain sites in general.
Or are you able to generally compare the types of costs you incurr on mountain sites compared to other sites.
-
Melvyn, you're 100% right. So in order to understand, please fly over the US and visit Stone Eagle next July. If you walk and carry 36, I'd be willing to bet every participant on this website will call golf in the US "cartball".
Until then, you're blowing in the wind.
Why does he have to do that? The USGA has labeled it cartball, so technically he is already right. The USGA says if you are not walking you are not playing golf! Melvyn simply is in compliance with the USGA! How more American can he get?
:P
;)
In all sincerity, could you reference the USGA labeling riding as cartball? I'm familiar with the walking pledge, and know that the program goes back to 1995, but I'd like to see in print where the USGA said that walking was not playing golf. I've never read that, and would love to see it in black and white.
You got it AG. It's in the booklet they published to go with the walking pledge.
Do you happen to have a copy of the booklet handy so that you could speed the process and quote it for me? I walk almost exactly 80% of my rounds, and I guess I should have taken the pledge by now, but never have and so do not possess said booklet. Help a brother out and quote it for me.
Thanks.
-
"If you're not walking, you're not playing golf. You might be playing "cart-ball," but it's not golf." from A Call to Feet "Golf is a Walking Game", USGA, 1995
-
the only question worth asking is whether an architect has managed to maximize the routing/golfing potential of a given site, and whether the a priori choice to require carts and cart paths has helped or hindered that goal.
Peter
-
Garland,
The USGA also recommends that every green should be a "USGA green". Does this mean you will refuse to play a course that does not have USGA "approved" greens!! ;D
I look to the USGA for the official rules. To my knowlegde, there is nothing that specifically says players must walk in the rules. So anything beyond the rule book are just guidelines!!
-
Garland,
The USGA also recommends that every green should be a "USGA green". Does this mean you will refuse to play a course that does not have USGA "approved" greens!! ;D
I look to the USGA for the official rules. To my knowlegde, there is nothing that specifically says players must walk in the rules. So anything beyond the rule book are just guidelines!!
Did the USGA say if it's not build to USGA green spec then it is not a green? I think not! Try apples to apples next time. ;D
-
To the best of my knowledge, the USGA expects (even requires) golfers to post scores of all completed rounds for USGA GHIN handicapping purposes. The scores are to be entered regardless of whether the golfer has walked of played his round riding in a cart. In terms of calculating GHIN, scores are in no way adjusted for either circumstance. The same goes for whether or not a golfer takes a caddie or uses a rangefinder for his round.
In my mind, that is clear evidence that, aside from championship events, the USGA considers playing in either fashion to be "golf."
That being said, I fully support the USGA's efforts to promote walking whenever and wherever possible.
-
96 replies, but still no answer to my question why should a Cart Ball courses require a different design to a walking courses in mountain areas?
Is it really more important to mock honest questions than to get answers, just what are you guys afraid of?
Melvyn
-
96 replies, but still no answer to my question why should a Cart Ball courses require a different design to a walking courses in mountain areas?
Is it really more important to mock honest questions than to get answers, just what are you guys afraid of?
Melvyn
I would assume it's incredibly expensive to build bridges over the large ravines that mountain courses almost always have. A cart can wind off in another direction to get you around such features. You could possibly (though on some courses, probably not completely) route around those ravines to solve this issue, but may lead to a less interesting course.
Part of what I dislike greatly about mountain courses is from this. You get in the cart, wind down the mountain in some weird direction and pop out in an unexpected place. Gets really confusing where the routing is coming/going, but unavoidable unless you're a sherpa.
-
Jim,
Great post. As everyone has said, very candid and very honest. I have played a number of your courses and recognize that you often take on sites that without carts, golf might not exist. You've done some amazing work on property where others would have never thought golf was possible.
Having said that, I do have to make one observation that I'd like to hear your comments about - I have played literally hundreds of rounds of golf in England, Scotland and Ireland on dozens and dozens of courses all over these countries and can count on one hand (or less) the number of times I took a cart (or felt I needed one). Why do you think that is? Do you think "better golf" sacrificed on many of those courses for the sake of walking or did the thought of incorporting a hole that did not allow walking never cross the architect's mind?
Mark
-
As the author of the topic in question, I appreciate your thorough (I take honesty and candor as a given) reply and I do hope that you return and answer the questions that have been put forth. I truly hate taking a cart, I love the visceral thrill of eighteen dynamic and visually jarring golf holes (Eastward Ho!), and I see your point precisely. So, my more specific question is -
Does the leveraging of cart paths, which obviously reaps huge benefits at the teeing grounds in the form of an expanded canvas, create limitations at the green sites? I guess this is a more nuanced framing of my original observation that your courses are unbearably scenic yet perhaps your bowled green sites are repetitive.
-
. . . why should a Cart Ball courses require a different design to a walking courses in mountain areas?
Well, at a mountainous cartball course, you can put a number of tees at the top of a steep, long path. And from this secluded, elevated tee box, there is a spectacular view, which everybody enjoys, and a substantially downhill tee shot, which mountain-dwelling American cartballers generally enjoy.
That's why!
-
After reading a thoughtful post by Jim Engh, one of the many architects that takes the time to discuss, debate and teach those of us not directly involved in the design business (the majority of the 1500 people on this board), I muddle through almost 4 pages of crap that continues to drive people in the gca business away from here. Thank you to those that tried to continue rational discussion based on Engh's posting.
Boys, many of you are taking yourselves far too seriously.
Ken
Ken,
Well said. I was thinking the same thing when I got to your post. Jim, thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts! Perhaps you forecasted what would happen with this thread when you came up with the title!
-
Jim,
I'm one of those that feel that cart paths are a neccesity today.
At clubs I'm familiar with I see men in their 80's and 90's playing golf.
Some walk, some ride.
Each golfer makes their decision based on multiple factors known only to them.
In addition, depending upon soil, terrain, weather patterns, etc., etc., cart paths can allow for play where walking only would limit or prohibit play for some.
In terms of the design element, I'd agree that the concept for the individual holes should be paramount, however, I think you have to allow latitude for cart paths. And, if that means a slight incremental reduction in the value of the hole, I think it's a worthy compromise.
There may come a day when the only golfers who could play the course are those riding the course.
Without the cart path option, revenue for the day would be lost if cart paths didn't exist.
I like walking, but, at the present time I can no longer walk 36 a day for several days in a row.
But, I can play 36 a day, for several days in a row by riding a cart, or riding a cart one day and walking the next.
Why should golfers with similar conditions/restrictions be prevented from enjoying a round of golf on a challenging, yet enjoyable golf course ?
Lastly, if the demographic of those playing golf advances, they may be the only ones paying and playing.
-
Melvyn -
You really should make an effort to come to the U.S. some time to see the terrain on which many golf courses have been built here over the past 20-30 years in states like California and Colorado. Some are remarkable feats of engineering and construction. The changes in elevation on the land where many of these courses have been built can be extreme. Changes in elevation from green to next tee can be 100 feet or more. The views from some of these tees are spectacular.
More often than not, the change in elevation is uphill and the distance between green and next tee is can be 50 to 100 yards or more. Even if there is no change in elevation, the distance from green to next tee might require traversing a canyon or ravine of similar distance in width. In theory, any of these courses are walkable, but, as a practical matter, they are not. Remember, golf is played in temperatures of 85-90F degrees in much of the U.S. during most of the summer.
I have played 40-50 seaside and inland courses in the British Isles and have seen nothing remotely close, in terms of topography, to the property on which some of these courses have been built. What is the change in elevation from the highest to the lowest point on courses like the Old Course or Muirfield? 25 feet? 50 feet?
You can and likely will argue that a golf course should never have been built on such land. The developers who employ Mr. Engh will tell you that there are people who live and/or vacation in these areas and they are interested in playing golf in this type of environment. They have the income and a willingness to spend it as required to make these project financially viable. That is the free market for you.
Until you have these some of these properties first hand, you will likely not be able to appreciate what I am saying.
DT
-
Jim,
I'm one of those that feel that cart paths are a neccesity today.
At clubs I'm familiar with I see men in their 80's and 90's playing golf.
Some walk, some ride.
Pat, your post made me think of this question for all of us:
if due to health considerations the only way you could golf would be to take a cart, what would you do?
i love the game too much to give it up, so i'd get a cart
and thanks Jim for your interesting and thoughtful post
-
Paul
In answer to your question, I cannot play for health reasons, this may or may not change in the future, but I will not play from a cart. No matter how I love the game, using a cart (for me) just does not feel like golf.
In 2007 I was taken round Strathpeffer Spa hilly course near Tain & Dornoch so as I cannot walk more than short distances, the Captain took me around the course in a cart. First time on a cart for nearly 20 years, yet I would hate to play my game this way. Its totally devoid of feeling, no continuity between holes, tracking back to the transport each time, hell for me its not golf, its not the way I have played since the 1960s and it will not be the way I want to play in the future.
The contact from the course, from ones vision and ones concentration is totally broken. The ability to observe as you progress around the course is restricted. I understand why many golfers need to use distance aids, markers, electronic aids, mainly because they ride carts, which seems to be the equivalent of stopping the blood flow to your brain minimising its ability to function correctly, forcing the golfer into being reliant on all outside information. Sorry just not for me, and how millions like playing the game this way is just beyond me, I need to observe, think and plan as I walk to my next shot, using a cart gives me a devoid blinkered view.
So the decision I made a few years ago was based upon do I actually want to change my game or stay true to its roots. Sorry, just no contest as a cart is not a replacement for my mobility problem, its just compounds the misery and is a constant reminder of what I have lost. Carting IMHO is not a second best option, its no option at all due to the remoteness of feeling it generates as it moves around the course. And if you are forced to stick to the cart paths, then just why bother.
Many on here say they are only using it to get from shot to shot. Rubbish, it shows that they have not fully experienced the feeling of the course speaking to you as you walk. Your senses are in a far higher state of alertness, adding fundamentally to the quality and enjoyment of your round. Riding you turn onto auto mode and everything else seems to switch off, sorry it is not for me.
I do not know if this helps you in anyway, but it is the path that I have chosen for myself.
Melvyn
-
Just to elaborate and run with the theme David T started.
Living in Utah and having played many legit mountain courses in the region, its usually not the holes themselves that make these courses very difficult to impossible to walk. Its the transitions between green to tee that will kill you. In many cases the courses are built along the side of a slope so to fit a course in, most holes run perpindicular to the slope of the mountain. So while the hole itself is relativly flat and very walkable, its getting to the next hole thats the problem.
And when there is little usable space in some areas, sometimes the transfers between two holes will both negotiate steep slopes and be several hundred yards long. If there were shuttle transfers on these worst ones, I would gladly walk these courses, but I can't imagine this would be very feasible in terms of staffing.
P.S. If stepping foot inside a cart at any point of a round turns golf into "cart ball", then that would mean even the PGAtour is a violater of this! ;)
-
As someone who has experience on both sides of this fence there's good (and poor) cases on both sides. Mitigating the impact of concrete can be just as thoughtful as a well placed knob or nose. What gets me is how often the poorer execution of cart path placement can affect not only the disabled but also those aesthetically sensitive. One issue that is guaranteed to chap my ass has to do with green exit strategies. I can say for an almost certainty that I have never felt that way on one of Jim's courses. I can not say the same for most others. Even some of the biggest names in the business. I can recall the very first time I was struck by a lack of respect for the walker and for pace of play. It was on the front nine @ San Juan Oaks. The total disregard for an intelligent routing hits the golfer almost immediately on what is flat terrain.
-
Just to elaborate and run with the theme David T started.
Living in Utah and having played many legit mountain courses in the region, its usually not the holes themselves that make these courses very difficult to impossible to walk. Its the transitions between green to tee that will kill you. In many cases the courses are built along the side of a slope so to fit a course in, most holes run perpindicular to the slope of the mountain. So while the hole itself is relativly flat and very walkable, its getting to the next hole thats the problem.
And when there is little usable space in some areas, sometimes the transfers between two holes will both negotiate steep slopes and be several hundred yards long. If there were shuttle transfers on these worst ones, I would gladly walk these courses, but I can't imagine this would be very feasible in terms of staffing.
P.S. If stepping foot inside a cart at any point of a round turns golf into "cart ball", then that would mean even the PGAtour is a violater of this! ;)
Kalen,
Are these cart ball courses as good as Indian Canyon? Or, are the GCAs who built them taking misguided advantage of using a cart to make the transistions?
-
Just to elaborate and run with the theme David T started.
Living in Utah and having played many legit mountain courses in the region, its usually not the holes themselves that make these courses very difficult to impossible to walk. Its the transitions between green to tee that will kill you. In many cases the courses are built along the side of a slope so to fit a course in, most holes run perpindicular to the slope of the mountain. So while the hole itself is relativly flat and very walkable, its getting to the next hole thats the problem.
And when there is little usable space in some areas, sometimes the transfers between two holes will both negotiate steep slopes and be several hundred yards long. If there were shuttle transfers on these worst ones, I would gladly walk these courses, but I can't imagine this would be very feasible in terms of staffing.
P.S. If stepping foot inside a cart at any point of a round turns golf into "cart ball", then that would mean even the PGAtour is a violater of this! ;)
Kalen,
Are these cart ball courses as good as Indian Canyon? Or, are the GCAs who built them taking misguided advantage of using a cart to make the transistions?
Garland,
In reviewing my xls that lists all the courses I've played, I found about half a dozen courses that would be called "cartball" courses which rank higher than Indian Canyon.
As for how they got there and what could have been, I defer to the Huckaby Theory. That is, there is no way to know because I or you don't know what the architect originally had to work with in terms of land, environmental restrictions, owner goals, etc, etc.
-
Garland,
In reviewing my xls that lists all the courses I've played, I found about half a dozen courses that would be called "cartball" courses which rank higher than Indian Canyon.
As for how they got there and what could have been, I defer to the Huckaby Theory. That is, there is no way to know because I or you don't know what the architect originally had to work with in terms of land, environmental restrictions, owner goals, etc, etc.
What ranking would that be that you are referring to?
-
Garland,
In reviewing my xls that lists all the courses I've played, I found about half a dozen courses that would be called "cartball" courses which rank higher than Indian Canyon.
As for how they got there and what could have been, I defer to the Huckaby Theory. That is, there is no way to know because I or you don't know what the architect originally had to work with in terms of land, environmental restrictions, owner goals, etc, etc.
What ranking would that be that you are referring to?
My own personal ranking list!! ;D
-
And the only one that really matters.
-
Are you kidding Jim? He used to rave about circling raven.
-
It's the only one that matters to HIM. I don't agree with his list, but I have my own. I like mine better.
-
Are you kidding Jim? He used to rave about circling raven.
Circling Raven is a good quality layout, and i still like it alot, but no doubt as Jim said in the other thread, its not in the same class as most of the others we played on that trip.
As for lists, I think most lists are interesting, but yes my list is compiled to my own personal likes and dislikes. I would suspect everyone's list is done this way if they are being honest with themselves and not homers to what other people think!! ;)
-
"If you're not walking, you're not playing golf. You might be playing "cart-ball," but it's not golf." from A Call to Feet "Golf is a Walking Game", USGA, 1995
I've seen this quote on websites that are selling products for walkers, but I can't find it on the USGA website. I'll call USGA tomorrow and try to get a copy of the booklet for myself to see the page number and complete context. (Perhaps you actually have the booklet, but just failed to provide the page number.) I don't object to the sentiment, but it seems a bit over the top for the USGA, an organization not, shall we say, normally given to excess.
-
A.G.
The second sentrence is not in the USGA's booklet, the first sentence is.
-
Mr. Engh,
I’ve been thinking about your post, which to my mind touched on many of the most important issues facing golf and golf design today. Thanks again for posting it. Unfortunately, I find myself with so many questions and concerns that I am not really even sure how to address them in a coherent and cohesive manner. It may be that we are better off breaking down some of these issues into separate threads, so that we can really flesh them out.
For now though I think I'll try and make sure that those of us discussing this are actually on the same page about just one basic issue. If you’d like to participate in the conversation that would be great, but if not I won’t hold it against you. I am sure that others won’t mind jumping in and offering their comments.
Designing for Walking.
Over the years, much of our discussion about your courses has been about whether or not you design your courses for walking and whether your courses are indeed walkable. Hopefully your post will allow us to put this discussion to bed. I understand that the following examples may be just three scenarios on a continuum, but hope they accurately represent your views:
1. On severe sites, walking is not even a consideration.
On the truly mountainous sites like Sanctuary, Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon, the decision was not whether walking is reasonable, 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.
2. On moderate sites (where a walking course might be suitable for about 1/2 the golfers) walking is still not much of a consideration.
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 the project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decision. Do the better course.
I suppose that one could argue that the resulting “better course” might happen to end up walkable for some hiker-types. But, if so, this would be more by happenstance than design, wouldn’t it? At the very least, isn’t the deck stacked heavily against the course ending up reasonably walkable?
3. On a flattish piece of land “the factor of walking is a much bigger consideration.” For example at Awarii Dunes, the course you are designing in Nebraska:
I have set a paramount on walking. Cart paths will be green to tee only and consist of a mixture of native sand and small gravel. Tee placements have been located for ease of access from the previous green.
I’m glad to hear that that you will build for walkers there. It makes sense, especially if the client is so inclined. But I am having a little trouble understanding why flattish land is treated differently from a design perspective. Most golfers will still ride. And the best holes you can find will not necessarily be the same holes that would be most conducive to walking, will they? So why don’t the same considerations apply to flattish sites as apply to moderate sites? Instead of trying to put the tee boxes next to greens, why not put them on better, higher ground even if a bit further away, to create the better golf hole? In short, why choose walkers over “the better course” just because the land is flattish?
One possibility is that your approach is the same on all sites, but there just aren’t a lot of opportunities to build powerful, inspiring, and spectacular holes on flattish sites. I guess another possibility is that you attach a much greater value to the traditional golfing experience in certain settings. If so I am curious as to why? Or perhaps it is some of both or something I am not considering?
At Awarii Dunes you plan to place your tees for ease of access from the green, and don’t plan on building continuous cart paths. Have you designed any other courses with the tees placed for easy of access and without continuous cart paths? Which of your courses have you set out to make easily walkable for most golfers? Have you designed any courses on a relatively flat site where walking was not a primary consideration?
Perhaps an example will help explain what I am asking. You built the course adjacent to the CSU practice facility, Harmony Golf Club. I haven't had the pleasure of playing there, but apparently it is a fairly flat piece of land, isn't it? If so then it is probably walkable for some, but from photos and representations I’ve seen, I am having trouble understanding how it was designed with walkers in mind. For example, on quite a few of the holes it doesn’t look as if there is any way easy way for the walker to even get to the fairway or green, except for some roundabout trek on the cart path. For example aren't there some water crossings where the bridge looks to be well away from the fairway. These roundabout treks are tough on walkers even on flat sites; carts can get navigate them much faster. Was the course one of those specifically designed for walking? Do golfers there actually walk? How about the college team?
_________________
Whatever you do with "flattish" sites I hope it is fair to say that, on the moderate and severe land, you aren’t just building cart-ball courses because it is a bad site. In fact, I would be very surprised if you considered these to be “bad” sites at all. Challenging certainly, but I doubt bad. It seems like you see these sites as great opportunities to build powerful, inspiring, and spectacular golf holes in a unique setting, and that might be impossible at more mundane sites. At least that is how I read the following passage and similar statements.
I still, and will always believe that the single greatest thing about the game of golf, is the diversity of the settings upon which the game is played. From desert golf to mountain golf to prairie golf to woodland golf to links golf to ocean golf, each type of golfing experience should be appreciated. That is what seperates our game from the sterile experience of bowling. Some of these types of courses, by nature, do not allow for easy walking and I will always choose to create inspiring golf holes with the use of a cart, rather than mundane golf holes walking.
I hope this is a good place to stop. I haven’t gotten into most of the issues that your post brings to mind and I haven't even touched on many of your design features that I have questioned in the past, but there has been so much conflict about whether and when you design for walkers, that I thought I'd try to make sure I am understanding you before I move on.
Thanks again for contributing to the conversation. I think you are very much in the majority regarding your views on carts and "the realities of the profession" and it is nice for me to read your frank and articulate comments on this issue and others.
-
A.G.
The second sentrence is not in the USGA's booklet, the first sentence is.
Jim,
Thanks; I suspected something along those lines.
-
A.G.
The second sentrence is not in the USGA's booklet, the first sentence is.
Sorry to burst your bubble Jim, but both sentences are in the booklet. As to the page number, it is 3. It is the very first point they make in the booklet. Why are you interested in misrepresenting what is in the booklet?
Perhaps a more apropos quote from the booklet for this thread is on page 13. "Golf courses must be designed with walking in mind. (There is not a great course in the world that is impracticable to walk.)"
-
Bayley
So let me get my head around this, Golf is a walking game, as confirmed by USGA in 1995. They also called for more walking courses at the same time.
Cart Ball is not Golf.
It that what the US Governing Body has been saying for over 14 years?
Melvyn
-
Melvyn,
All I can do is report what the USGA said in their 1995 booklet. However, I have never seen them rescind the statements made there.
-
Garland,
You still can't get around the fact that a legal USGA handicap round can be scored while playing golf in a cart. So outside of making a specific rule to prohibit this, any thing else they say on the matter is merely an opinion. ;D Just like building USGA greens is another opinion they hold
If they were so dead set against carts why wouldn't they just make a simple rule that says playing golf in a cart is non-reportable for handicap purposes?
-
Garland,
Why such a smart ass? Trust me, you wouldn't know how to burst my bubble. ;D
AG's post intrigued me so I used my "Ask a Friend" option and called someone in NJ who I thought would know. I haven't seen the booklet myself so I can't yet tell who is correct, but I don't think either of you would be lying about it. Someone is misinformed, no more no less. If it turns out that you are right, well good for you. No animals, children or adult morons were hurt in the making of that earlier post. ;)
Personally, I don't really care if a course is a better walk or a better ride, as long as it's interesting, and as the booklet says, the best of the best will be a practicable walk. That should suffice.
-
Garland,
Why such a smart ass? Trust me, you wouldn't know how to burst my bubble. ;D
AG's post intrigued me so I used my "Ask a Friend" option and called someone in NJ who I thought would know. I haven't seen the booklet myself so I can't yet tell who is correct, but I don't think either of you would be lying about it. Someone is misinformed, no more no less. If it turns out that you are right, well good for you. No animals, children or adult morons were hurt in the making of that earlier post. ;)
Personally, I don't really care if a course is a better walk or a better ride, as long as it's interesting, and as the booklet says, the best of the best will be a practicable walk. That should suffice.
Check your email. You will then have seen the booklet and can tell who is correct!
-
GB,
That's a cute little booklet. I'd like to thank Snoopy for setting the record straight. ;)
-
Hey Garland,
Do you like Apples? Well how about these apples...straight from the rulebook!
http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-33/
33-1/8 Use of Golf Carts in Competition
Q. May a player use a golf cart during a competition?
A. Yes, unless such equipment is prohibited in the conditions of the competition
So which viewpoint are we to give more weight to? An "opinion" from 14 years ago, or an actual ruling in the current rules?
Apparently even the USGA believes playing golf with carts is indeed playing golf! ;D
Game over!! ;)
-
Gaylord Barley,
I don't care who is correct, but If you have a digital copy, could you send me one as well? I've looked a bit but haven't found one online.
Also, since Mr. Engh is from North Dakota and you are from pretty close to what we used to call West Dakota (eastern Montana) do you think it would lighten the mood around here if I shared my favorite grade school North Dakotan joke? Or would it be seen as another inappropriate attack?
(For those of you not fortunate enough to grow up in The Last Best Place, North Dakotan jokes are about all Montanans have to entertain themselves on those long winter nights. Except for the sheep, that is.)
-
Hey Garland,
Do you like Apples? Well how about these apples...straight from the rulebook!
http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-33/
33-1/8 Use of Golf Carts in Competition
Q. May a player use a golf cart during a competition?
A. Yes, unless such equipment is prohibited in the conditions of the competition
So which viewpoint are we to give more weight too? An "opinion" from 14 years ago, or an actual ruling in the current rules?
Apparently even the USGA believes playing golf with carts is indeed playing golf! ;D
Game over!! ;)
Kalen,
You seem to be desperate to read things that aren't there. They believe playing golf is walking, as they have written. They allow the use of a cart, but do not state that is their idea of playing golf. Indeed, to get people to play golf as they see it, they allow the stipulation of the requirement that you must walk.
Also, it looks as though you are not quoting the rule book, but instead are quoting the decisions on the rules.
I'll let you answer that without taking the time to verify myself as you apparently have the resource at hand.
-
Hey Garland,
Do you like Apples? Well how about these apples...straight from the rulebook!
http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-33/
33-1/8 Use of Golf Carts in Competition
Q. May a player use a golf cart during a competition?
A. Yes, unless such equipment is prohibited in the conditions of the competition
So which viewpoint are we to give more weight too? An "opinion" from 14 years ago, or an actual ruling in the current rules?
Apparently even the USGA believes playing golf with carts is indeed playing golf! ;D
Game over!! ;)
Kalen,
You seem to be desperate to read things that aren't there. They believe playing golf is walking, as they have written. They allow the use of a cart, but do not state that is their idea of playing golf. Indeed, to get people to play golf as they see it, they allow the stipulation of the requirement that you must walk.
Also, it looks as though you are not quoting the rule book, but instead are quoting the decisions on the rules.
I'll let you answer that without taking the time to verify myself as you apparently have the resource at hand.
No desperation here big bird!! ;D
Its very simple, follow the logical flow.
1) USGA makes rules for "golf".
2) Rules include decisions which carry same weight as rules when there is a dispute/question.
3) USGA specifically says "golfers can use carts during competition"
4) If competition golf = golf and carts can be used in competition, then when using carts, one is still "golfing" not cart-balling. By definition it must be golf and cannot something else.
Its that easy!!! ;) 8)
-
Oh and one more thing, before you wriggle and spin some more!!
When the USGA says "You might be playing "cart-ball," but it's not golf.", they are expliciting declaring cart-ball is not = golf... thats not just a mere opinion.
And when the official rules and decision say cart-ball is = golf, then you now have a clear contradiction.
At best you have to ask yourself, was the USGA lying then, or are they lying now!! ;)
-
...
4) If competition golf = golf and carts can be used in competition, then when using carts, one is still "golfing" not cart-balling. By definition it must be golf and cannot something else.
...
Let me know when you find this definition by the USGA. You should be familiar enough with logic to know you whole argument rests on it.
-
Jim,
I'm one of those that feel that cart paths are a neccesity today.
At clubs I'm familiar with I see men in their 80's and 90's playing golf.
Some walk, some ride.
Pat, your post made me think of this question for all of us:
if due to health considerations the only way you could golf would be to take a cart, what would you do?
i love the game too much to give it up, so i'd get a cart
Paul,
It's not a hypothetical question for me.
There was a time when I couldn't walk 50 feet, nor could I hit a ball 180 off the tee, but, I played as much as I could with a cart, and, I was competitive.
Why should I be deprived of playing a game I love so much, solely because of a medical condition that prevents me from walking ?
If someone gave up the game because they couldn't walk the golf course, but, could play with the use of a cart, I'd have to question their golfing soul.
and thanks Jim for your interesting and thoughtful post
-
Bayley,
When I played in the U.S.G.A. Amateur, I didn't notice or wasn't aware of any fellow competitors who had had by-pass surgery, hip and/or knee replacements, detached retinas, neuropathy, angioplasties, cataract surgery, various forms of cancer or numerous other maladies.
When I played in the U.S.G.A. Senior Amateur it was an unusual and blessed competitor who didn't have one or more of those afflictions.
The U.S.G.A. allows cart use in their competitons because they recognize the golfer's desire to play competitive golf despite the fact that their body's aren't capable of walking.
-
Not long ago I played a golf course that had a reachable par 5, with a fairway and features that sloped left to right, especially at the green surrounds.
The configuration was:
Green
Flanking Bunker/s (5 yards)
Sloping mound/s (5 yards)
Macadam Cart path (2 yards)
OB (immediately next to the cart path)
Any ball hit slightly right of the green that wasn't fortunate enough to land in the right flanking bunker would probably bounce off the slope, onto the cart path and out of bounds.
The material used and placement of that cart path is/are the product of ________ ( I'll let you fill in the blank).
-
Jim,
I'm one of those that feel that cart paths are a neccesity today.
At clubs I'm familiar with I see men in their 80's and 90's playing golf.
Some walk, some ride.
Pat, your post made me think of this question for all of us:
if due to health considerations the only way you could golf would be to take a cart, what would you do?
i love the game too much to give it up, so i'd get a cart
Paul,
It's not a hypothetical question for me.
There was a time when I couldn't walk 50 feet, nor could I hit a ball 180 off the tee, but, I played as much as I could with a cart, and, I was competitive.
Why should I be deprived of playing a game I love so much, solely because of a medical condition that prevents me from walking ?
If someone gave up the game because they couldn't walk the golf course, but, could play with the use of a cart, I'd have to question their golfing soul.
well said Patrick and I feel the same way as you do
-
...
4) If competition golf = golf and carts can be used in competition, then when using carts, one is still "golfing" not cart-balling. By definition it must be golf and cannot something else.
...
Let me know when you find this definition by the USGA. You should be familiar enough with logic to know you whole argument rests on it.
Just as YOUR argument rests on a two statements found in a 16 page booklet featuring Snoopy written almost 15 years ago. YOUR argument is found nowhere in the Rules, nor in the Decisions, nor in the handicapping system rules. In fact, quite the contrary is the case, as has been pointed out to you endlessly, correctly, and clearly.
In truth, you actually have no real "argument". What you have is a tiresome, self-righteous, never-ending rant against people that make different choices than you make, and that's pretty much it. I know you thrive on that sort of thing, but yelling the same thing over and over and over doesn't make it true or correct; most learn that at a very young age.
I would suggest that you re-read Mr. Mucci's last several posts. He is as good a steward of our great game as I know of, and his opinion on this subject carries great weight. What part of his thoughts do you find to be incorrect, poorly thought out, or inconsistent with the Rules?
-
...
If someone gave up the game because they couldn't walk the golf course, but, could play with the use of a cart, I'd have to question their golfing soul.
...
As we all know there are Scottish people that consider walking such an integral part of the game that they question someone's soul if they take a cart to play at golf instead of moving on to other things.
Your perspective is your perspective. Their perspective is their perspective. I believe each is entitled.
But the the issue really is about those who can walk, but choose to take a cart and enable Mr Engh, now isn't it?
-
...
What you have is a tiresome, self-righteous, never-ending rant against people that make different choices than you make, and that's pretty much it. I know you thrive on that sort of thing, but yelling the same thing over and over and over doesn't make it true or correct; most learn that at a very young age.
...
Define rant and yelling.
This is a discussion group! If David Moriarity and I make logical statements and reasoned arguments that you don't agree with, don't give them attributes that they don't have.
We have already seen where you would accept a falsehood over the truth, because perhaps it is your perception that I am ranting.
As you may see above Patrick Mucci and I don't necessarily have a disagreement like you would suppose.
-
Patrick I have no qualms with your take on things and generally agree that the that can't walk should have the option of riding. At the same time I support places like Bandon who are making efforts to rebuild the walking golf ethic. If I could no longer walk i'd probably take a cart but Try to play at courses that provided me as close as I could come to a traditional golf experience.
I think most agree with this. But this really has little or nothing to do with Mr. Engh's courses. Rather we are concerned with the trend of Mr. Engh and others choosing to build unwalkable courses even though the site could be made walkable for a large portion of golfers.. So on these courses there is no choice. Everyone rides. The only choice is whether or not to play.
-
So your whole agenda has been to tell people NOT to play his courses. That's the whole purpose behind these relentless rude attacks, to demonize Jim and brand him as something you think is bad for the game because you simply won't tolerate something a little different from your own preferences and won't broaden your mind one jot...not even after only playing ONE of his courses.
This is Ran Morrissett's North Star, his raison d'etre...a place where we - his guests - are lucky enough to talk with, and even ask questions of the greatest minds in the golf design. You just treat people here - including architects who we should be overjoyed to get to know - as a footrag, cross-examining and overlawyering them. Give it a rest, will ya? This is a place where gentlemen are supposed to have fun, unwind, and exchange ideas. You seem to think there's a scoreboard somewhere. Well your theories will win more respect if you present them more politely instead of trying to conduct depositions and serving endless interrogatories. After the way you've treated Jim on this thread and the other...why should he even bother giving you the time of day?
You wanna know why I don't participate in threads with you any more? Because for a man who incessantly demands respect and acts with such superiority, you go about seeking it with a remarkable lack of skill and tact. You need to change your Internet persona from this overbearing, dominant condescension because people don't look forward to interacting with you with much pleasure. No one likes internet trolls, so try being nicer.
I know that you could be good company if you chose, and I know you want to be liked and respected. Well you'll go a lot further if you tone down the lawyer act here and let people be who they are and free to have their own opinions.
-
So your whole agenda has been to tell people NOT to play his courses.
Well now that one monster bit of flawed reasoning. Actually, we recognize it as an emotional response, not reasoning at all.
-
The only choice is whether or not to play.
His words, garland.
-
The USGA made a some philosophical statements in A Call to Feet. The making and issuing of rules to control competitions is a pragmatic matter. (If they weren't involved in a pragmatic task, then there would be no "decisions".)
I haven't checked with Kalen, but I suspect he understands that we are having a philosophical discussion about golf vs. cart-ball and is happily engaging in a give and take on the matter. He knows I was perfectly willing to walk against his riding in the GRUDGE MATCH, as the original plan was for him to ride with Anthony while I walked. It was only the wonderful break we got on the weather that allowed him to enjoy a walking round with me. He knows I harbor no ill will against him for riding. He also knows had he ridden he would have taken a little bit of ribbing from me.
-
If someone gave up the game because they couldn't walk the golf course, but, could play with the use of a cart, I'd have to question their golfing soul.
Amen. I'd reach a conclusion in about 5 nanoseconds too.
-
If someone gave up the game because they couldn't walk the golf course, but, could play with the use of a cart, I'd have to question their golfing soul.
Amen. I'd reach a conclusion in about 5 nanoseconds too.
I hope you read some of the other responses.
-
The only choice is whether or not to play.
His words, garland.
??? And there was a point to this post. ???
Every day a golfer has this choice. To play or not to play. That is the question.
The only special significance here that is has it the significance you alone have twisted in your mind.
-
Apparently the discussion group is now an evangelical organization.....
-
Apparently the discussion group is now an evangelical organization.....
How so Joe?
-
It appears that the trend is try to convince people why their opinion is wrong, and that they should see things the "right" way....
In defense of all posters on this thread, I haven't read every single word, so I may be wrong.
Joe
-
“I'd have to question their golfing soul”. If I understand the comment correctly, let’s look at a serious alternative opinion from a committed walker.
Yes, I would not just question their golfing soul but their commitment to the game by accepting the use of a cart.
A walker, a true disciple of the faith, takes up carting, is like Christ given in to the Devil. Raising questions about the individual, asking if he has any balls, more than a shallow commitment and questionable loyalties to the Walking Game. Nothing short of total self-betrayal, no moral fibre and a complete rejection of ones life’s commitment to the real game of golf. It’s not as if one is accepting second best but openly and actively embracing the doctrine of the alternative faith ‘The Devils Doctrine’ of Cart Balling.
Modern life has and is creating modern man with no real backbone, the why bother getting involved mentality, yet the early Christians would stand fast, face the consequences of their faith, perish if required to defend their belief, than to just acquiesce to the bully boys, morons and peddlers of profit.
I think I have to question the golfing soul of those who use carts, not the other way round. The final answer will no doubt come from on high – no, not God but the Political and Religious Correct Nuts on GCA.com, who keep telling all of us poor mortals that we are wrong and must follow their ways to enlightenment.
Just a thought verging on an opinion that perhaps golf carts are the product of The Devil.
Melvyn
-
“I'd have to question their golfing soul”. If I understand the comment correctly, let’s look at a serious alternative opinion from a committed walker.
Yes, I would not just question their golfing soul but their commitment to the game by accepting the use of a cart.
Melvin,
When you can't stand in a shower because the pain in your feet is so unbearable that you have to place a 6 inch thick foam rubber cushion on the shower floor so you can bathe, when you can't walk in your bare feet on a wooden, tile or any hard surface floor because the pain in your feet is unbearable and when your equilibrium becomes so disfunctional that you have to shower by leaning in the corner to prevent yourself from losing your balance and falling, and when you get constantly fatiqued to the degree that you have to stop and catch your breath every time you walk 20 to 50 feet, tell me how you question my committment to the game of golf when I continued to play, thanks to the use of a cart, despite those conditions ?
I hope everyone and their family's enjoy the gift of good health, but even the most athletic, robust men of steel succumb to the effects of ill health, one only has to look at Walter Payton to understand that no one is immune to infirmity.
Carts, like stents, by-passes, joint and organ replacements allow those who would otherwise have to quit the game they love, to continue to play and enjoy the game they love.
-
This thread is a good example of why I have little interestest in participating here anymore.
A great start by Jim [I would like to cut and paste with your permission], about real world golf design....followed by a bunch of cyber space little dicks's [you know who you are] comments.
Thanks Ran, and I will stay in touch.
-
As a young member of the DG, I was on a furious pace of posting and "opinionating" for a long while. Then I tapered off. This discussion--aside from a formal training course, a wedding, and moving into a new home--is one of the reasons why. The amount of vitriolic and hypocritical speech spewed by me and others is simply appalling.
This is the type of thread also makes me want to subscribe more and more to Mr. Paul's Big World theory. Hell, it's not theory anymore. Because despite my views on the future of the golf business, and despite Moriarty's, Bayley's, and Mel's views on walking; Mr. Engh continues to get work, and people continue to play his courses.
Guys. This thread needs to die a rapid, violent death.
By the way. I agree with Clint and Mucci in regards to giving it all up to stay off a cart. I'd play any of the great courses I played this year with a cart if offered so.
-
...
If someone gave up the game because they couldn't walk the golf course, but, could play with the use of a cart, I'd have to question their golfing soul.
...
As we all know there are Scottish people that consider walking such an integral part of the game that they question someone's soul if they take a cart to play at golf instead of moving on to other things.
When someone reaches 70 and is physically limited, and younger women are no longer available, what do the Scots suggest you move on to ? :-*
Your perspective is your perspective. Their perspective is their perspective. I believe each is entitled.
I believe mine is more reasoned.
Besides, many, if not most, of the Scots I've observed play with pull carts/trolleys.
But the the issue really is about those who can walk, but choose to take a cart
That's an entirely different matter, and there, I'd agree with the Scots.
Although, the Scots rarely play 36 a day for a few days when it's humid, 102 degrees under an unrelenting sun, without a zephyr in the air. ;D
and enable Mr Engh, now isn't it?
The first time I played Sherwood (CA), I was shocked by the walks ( IN SPIKES) from green to tee.
Subsequently, I've learned that due to the site and the use of the site, green to tee distances are unwieldy to unmanageable, to put it politely.
However, the home sites were quite expensive.
-
Jay, you are way out of line. My post to Patrick was no slam on Jim Engh or anyone else. You’ve taken a leap well beyond logic. And your insults are unfounded and uncalled for, again. I’ll assume you are just having another bad day, but in the future please refrain from lecturing me how to behave. As your post demonstrates, you are not the one to give advice on that subject.
Everyone Else,
Rather than take Jay’s word for this garbage, I’d appreciate it if you’d look at my posts and decide for yourself. Aside from this post and the one above that set Jay off, I believe I have posted three times in these five pages. In the first I thanked Mr. Engh for posting. In the second I provided my understanding of his position (I think this was important because it has been the focus of much of our discussion) and asked a few questions. In the third I asked Garland to send me the USGA pamphlet and joked with him about Montanans telling North Dakotan jokes.
I guess maybe the third one was arguable offensive, so a suppose I owe an apology: If any sheep were upset by my comments above, I sincerely apologize.
For those who see fit to draw conclusions without bothering to read the thread, I've copied these three posts below, and the fourth is just above. I’d appreciate knowing whether and where I was rude or disrespectful to Mr. Engh in these posts. Thanks.
Mr. Engh,
Thanks for the post and for your past posts and threads as well. Having just read them recently, I am impressed with your honest and informative comments. I especially enjoyed the thread on whether “natural” should be the ultimate goal of golf design, and may even try to resurrect it at some point. To my mind it was a great example of the kind of questions we should consider more often. While I still don't think I agree with much of your approach to course design, I understand it better after reading your thoughtful comments.
As for your post today it is again refreshingly honest and frank, and you have my appreciation and respect for again addressing the criticisms levied against you. Lord knows with the level of success you have attained, you don't owe me or anyone else any sort of explanation. So thanks for humoring us.
I hope to address the substance of your post soon, as time allows.
Thanks again,
David.
____________________________
Jay,
Mr. Engh is an able communicator, so instead of trying to spin his words why don't you just let him speak for himself?
My Second Post:
Mr. Engh,
I’ve been thinking about your post, which to my mind touched on many of the most important issues facing golf and golf design today. Thanks again for posting it. Unfortunately, I find myself with so many questions and concerns that I am not really even sure how to address them in a coherent and cohesive manner. It may be that we are better off breaking down some of these issues into separate threads, so that we can really flesh them out.
For now though I think I'll try and make sure that those of us discussing this are actually on the same page about just one basic issue. If you’d like to participate in the conversation that would be great, but if not I won’t hold it against you. I am sure that others won’t mind jumping in and offering their comments.
Designing for Walking.
Over the years, much of our discussion about your courses has been about whether or not you design your courses for walking and whether your courses are indeed walkable. Hopefully your post will allow us to put this discussion to bed. I understand that the following examples may be just three scenarios on a continuum, but hope they accurately represent your views:
1. On severe sites, walking is not even a consideration.
On the truly mountainous sites like Sanctuary, Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon, the decision was not whether walking is reasonable, 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.
2. On moderate sites (where a walking course might be suitable for about 1/2 the golfers) walking is still not much of a consideration.
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 the project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decision. Do the better course.
I suppose that one could argue that the resulting “better course” might happen to end up walkable for some hiker-types. But, if so, this would be more by happenstance than design, wouldn’t it? At the very least, isn’t the deck stacked heavily against the course ending up reasonably walkable?
3. On a flattish piece of land “the factor of walking is a much bigger consideration.” For example at Awarii Dunes, the course you are designing in Nebraska:
I have set a paramount on walking. Cart paths will be green to tee only and consist of a mixture of native sand and small gravel. Tee placements have been located for ease of access from the previous green.
I’m glad to hear that that you will build for walkers there. It makes sense, especially if the client is so inclined. But I am having a little trouble understanding why flattish land is treated differently from a design perspective. Most golfers will still ride. And the best holes you can find will not necessarily be the same holes that would be most conducive to walking, will they? So why don’t the same considerations apply to flattish sites as apply to moderate sites? Instead of trying to put the tee boxes next to greens, why not put them on better, higher ground even if a bit further away, to create the better golf hole? In short, why choose walkers over “the better course” just because the land is flattish?
One possibility is that your approach is the same on all sites, but there just aren’t a lot of opportunities to build powerful, inspiring, and spectacular holes on flattish sites. I guess another possibility is that you attach a much greater value to the traditional golfing experience in certain settings. If so I am curious as to why? Or perhaps it is some of both or something I am not considering?
At Awarii Dunes you plan to place your tees for ease of access from the green, and don’t plan on building continuous cart paths. Have you designed any other courses with the tees placed for easy of access and without continuous cart paths? Which of your courses have you set out to make easily walkable for most golfers? Have you designed any courses on a relatively flat site where walking was not a primary consideration?
Perhaps an example will help explain what I am asking. You built the course adjacent to the CSU practice facility, Harmony Golf Club. I haven't had the pleasure of playing there, but apparently it is a fairly flat piece of land, isn't it? If so then it is probably walkable for some, but from photos and representations I’ve seen, I am having trouble understanding how it was designed with walkers in mind. For example, on quite a few of the holes it doesn’t look as if there is any way easy way for the walker to even get to the fairway or green, except for some roundabout trek on the cart path. For example aren't there some water crossings where the bridge looks to be well away from the fairway. These roundabout treks are tough on walkers even on flat sites; carts can get navigate them much faster. Was the course one of those specifically designed for walking? Do golfers there actually walk? How about the college team?
_________________
Whatever you do with "flattish" sites I hope it is fair to say that, on the moderate and severe land, you aren’t just building cart-ball courses because it is a bad site. In fact, I would be very surprised if you considered these to be “bad” sites at all. Challenging certainly, but I doubt bad. It seems like you see these sites as great opportunities to build powerful, inspiring, and spectacular golf holes in a unique setting, and that might be impossible at more mundane sites. At least that is how I read the following passage and similar statements.
I still, and will always believe that the single greatest thing about the game of golf, is the diversity of the settings upon which the game is played. From desert golf to mountain golf to prairie golf to woodland golf to links golf to ocean golf, each type of golfing experience should be appreciated. That is what seperates our game from the sterile experience of bowling. Some of these types of courses, by nature, do not allow for easy walking and I will always choose to create inspiring golf holes with the use of a cart, rather than mundane golf holes walking.
I hope this is a good place to stop. I haven’t gotten into most of the issues that your post brings to mind and I haven't even touched on many of your design features that I have questioned in the past, but there has been so much conflict about whether and when you design for walkers, that I thought I'd try to make sure I am understanding you before I move on.
Thanks again for contributing to the conversation. I think you are very much in the majority regarding your views on carts and "the realities of the profession" and it is nice for me to read your frank and articulate comments on this issue and others.
My Third Post:
Gaylord Barley,
I don't care who is correct, but If you have a digital copy, could you send me one as well? I've looked a bit but haven't found one online.
Also, since Mr. Engh is from North Dakota and you are from pretty close to what we used to call West Dakota (eastern Montana) do you think it would lighten the mood around here if I shared my favorite grade school North Dakotan joke? Or would it be seen as another inappropriate attack?
(For those of you not fortunate enough to grow up in The Last Best Place, North Dakotan jokes are about all Montanans have to entertain themselves on those long winter nights. Except for the sheep, that is.)
That's it. When writing the posts I was sincere and my comments were made with great respect for Mr. Engh and his willingness to humor us at all. Disrespect and disagreement are two different things, but apparently some here don't understand the distinction. But I guess I should have known that already.
-
P.S.
I walked 18 on Saturday and 36 on Sunday.
Unfortunately, I paid the price on Monday.
Has anyone walked Cascata ?
In the summer ?
-
Patrick
I would refer you to my post #106 from yesterday. I understand pain way more than you may think. I also understand the strength and pull of golf as much as the next golfer, perhaps more so.
Melvyn
Back to Jim’s post and my original post on his subject in which I asked a question or two, but never answered by Jim. Instead of some being so full of themselves on a DG site, perhaps they should ask what is the point of someone posting a topic then not bothering to input again on that topic when questions are asked or bound to be asked.
Too many, to ride or walk is of no importance to them, they just play and enjoy the experience. Others for a variety of reasons dislike the cart, some bother to put forward very valid, deeply sincere and honest opinions on that subject to the Discussion Group. Yet with limited Membership of 1500, the GCA.com Discussion Group has well known names submitting topics and comments for what I would have thought have been the purpose of discussion.
ALL MEMBERS HAVE A RIGHT TO AN OPINION AND THANKS TO RAN & BEN, THE FACILITY TO VOICE SAID OPINIONS. It is meant to be a discussion group, so expect discussions. Stay and get involved, however if strongly and unfairly verbally attacked or the victim of unpleasantness (not just a disagreement) then I fully sympathize and you should do what you believe you must.
As for trying to build courses in – lets just call it ‘Land Not Fit For Purpose’ which from the initial concept required carts (perhaps for the long treks between Greens & Tees), expect some reaction if it is still going to be sold as a Golf Course. Golf was never about long walks or certainly not long rides between Greens and the next Tee. Originally, the Tees & Greens were on top of each other.
If the designers and developers of these projects want them to be golf courses how can that be if they make statements as Jim did and I highlighted it in my reply#34
The good news is, if it is possible it will be very spectacular. 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 thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.
IMHO and according to Garland the USGA also do not consider this type of game, Golf. I still do not understand that if forgetting carts acting as ones legs how can the game itself offer a’ 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’. Do these courses not have the same Tees, Fairways, Greens be it for walking or carts. Is the powerful experience down to just the views plus the challenge of driving/riding between holes? If so Jim’s statement is totally misleading as being generated by the trek between Greens & Tees and not the playability of the course design. IMHO, I believe my post #34 was a fair request for information and understanding of Cart Balling. However, it was blown out of all proportion by singular minded individuals. Things never seem to change, do they?
Melvyn
-
IMHO, I believe my post #34 was a fair request for information and understanding of Cart Balling. However, it was blown out of all proportion by singular minded individuals. Things never seem to change, do they?
Melvyn
If you'd stop ranting for a second, you'd notice that both myself and David Tepper gave you sincere answers/opinions in our responses, #98 and #104 respectively.
I also believe it would be physically impossible to walk some courses in under 4.5 hours. Granted, those in carts can't get it done either all the time....but at least it's possible. Pace of play, IMO, is a very legit reason on mountain courses to be cart-only. In case nobody has highlighted it yet, in most cases it is impossible to travel in a straight line from the tee to green on many of these courses. Some require very long side-tracked journeys because of the difficult terrain they are built on.
-
Clint
Is it reasonable to call it ranting? Yes, you and David did suggest some answers but from #34 to #98, I believe others did more than rant.
It’s indicative of the slow round of 4.5 hours plus as you specified, I suppose that many here now mirror their speed of play with commenting on this site.
What is most shocking is that you accept and tolerate 4.5 to 5 hour rounds, even on a cart, God what in Hells name are you playing over there Marathon Cart Ball? Can a game of Golf take that long, in fact should a game of golf be allowed to take that long. Well only you guys can answer that.
Melvyn
PS. I always find it funny how some feel I rant, clearly freedom of speech is only allowed when you and your friends seem to permit it, that’s usually only when you speak. We are all equal but some of you are more equal than the rest of us. Clint, spending too much time in the sun, well you would if you take 4-5 hours per round even when on you carts.
-
If you'd stop ranting for a second, you'd notice that both myself and David Tepper gave you sincere answers/opinions in our responses, #98 and #104 respectively.
[/quote]
Clint,
You're right, of course, but this thread was ONLY about 3 individuals ranting pages ago. They weren't seeking information, just a pulpit. Engh stated his points clearly and correctly, and those have been expounded and expanded upon long since by others. I think it is safe to say that none of the three are going to have eureka moments and acknowledge that:
a. there are courses that are simply better if they are less walkable, unfortunately, due to the available terrain
b. that most golfers in 2009 don't especially want to walk anyway (with many of the 1500 on this site as notable exceptions, IMO.)
c. that there are golfers who, though willing, are unable to walk for one reason or another but still love the game
d. that developers and housing often drive routing, rather than architecture alone
e. that there is a market system at work in the golf business, rather than simply "the game"
f. that architects are responsible to the person(s) paying them, rather than to someone's notion of the purity of the game.
All of this and more has been pointed out over and over to these three, and yet they continue to rant and drive others who know far, far more about the subject (and profession) of GCA away from the site. Unfortunate, but the simple fact is that an open mind is required for education to occur. You tried; the failure is theirs, not yours.
-
A.G._Crockett writes:
a. there are courses that are simply better if they are less walkable, unfortunately, due to the available terrain
b. that most golfers in 2009 don't especially want to walk anyway (with many of the 1500 on this site as notable exceptions, IMO.)
c. that there are golfers who, though willing, are unable to walk for one reason or another but still love the game
d. that developers and housing often drive routing, rather than architecture alone
e. that there is a market system at work in the golf business, rather than simply "the game"
f. that architects are responsible to the person(s) paying them, rather than to someone's notion of the purity of the game.
They want all this ... and they want to hold themselves up in the same company with people who design golf courses. Sorry, you don't get it all. A choice was made to design cartball and now they also want to be considered golf courses. They are not. They are cartball.
They have every right to design cartball courses, and I have every right to consider them as not golf courses. Ain't it cool how we all have rights?
Cheers,
Dan King
They'd have to carry me out here before they would get me in a golf cart.
--Arnold Palmer (when carts were permitted on the Senior Tour for the first time, 1985)
-
Clint
Is it reasonable to call it ranting? Yes, you and David did suggest some answers but from #34 to #98, I believe others did more than rant.
It’s indicative of the slow round of 4.5 hours plus as you specified, I suppose that many here now mirror their speed of play with commenting on this site.
What is most shocking is that you accept and tolerate 4.5 to 5 hour rounds, even on a cart, God what in Hells name are you playing over there Marathon Cart Ball? Can a game of Golf take that long, in fact should a game of golf be allowed to take that long. Well only you guys can answer that.
Melvyn
PS. I always find it funny how some feel I rant, clearly freedom of speech is only allowed when you and your friends seem to permit it, that’s usually only when you speak. We are all equal but some of you are more equal than the rest of us. Clint, spending too much time in the sun, well you would if you take 4-5 hours per round even when on you carts.
Melvyn, you're making things up. Nowhere did I say I accept, nor tolerate 4.5 hour rounds. A 4.5 hour+ round is torture for me. I much prefer to walk as well. Stereotyping me into your vision of US golf is both unfair and flat incorrect. You can dislike me without distorting the truth. That's perfectly acceptable in my mind.
What I did say is that the routing necessitated by the extreme topography would make it impossible to walk in under 4.5 hours. A person couldn't physically couldn't do it. By myself, I routinely walk my club in 2:45 without any delay. I'm a fast player, one that you'd probably find that played lock-step with anyone on your side of the pond. But with the terrain dictating it impossible to traverse the course in a 100% forward moving fashion, it would be impossible for ME or YOU to walk it in that time frame. You can find yourself having to walk a few hundred extra yards on a hole because of the terrain. That adds time to a walker. Plain and simple. It's hard to describe how the extreme terrain affects walkability to someone who has never seen it. Unfortunately, you seem to deep into your own opinion to allow that thought for even one second.
-
A blurb from a Colorado Law periodical
"June 18, 2008
Sand Traps and Ponds Aren’t the Only Hazards
Those little vehicles that buzz around golf courses as well as parks, sports fields and public recreational areas might be a cost-saving alternative to larger vehicles, but a pair of studies released this week suggests they do have their risks. The numbers of injuries have been increasing as more people rely on golf carts for transportation off golf courses. While there were about 5,772 injuries in 1990, the number more than doubled to 13,411 in 2006. Over the period studied, the researchers counted injuries in almost 150,000 people ages 2 months to 96 years.
The research found that over a four-year period, nearly 50,000 people were hurt in accidents involving golf carts. One of the studies, by the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said about 1,000 Americans are hurt on golf carts every month. Males aged 10 to 19 and people over 80 had the highest injury rates. About half of the injuries occur on golf courses or in other sports venues, such as football stadiums. The rest are typically on streets or residential property.
Part of the problem is that the carts are faster than they used to be. But they are also being used in ways they were not necessarily intended for and are carrying people — like children — they should not, the study said.
Many of the injuries were caused by falls, which can occur at speeds as low as 11 miles per hour when the cart turns, the study said. And newer carts can hit 25 m.p.h. They often lack safety equipment, the majority of the carts in use do not have seat belts. Furthermore, the lack of front brakes makes the vehicles prone to fishtail, the study said.
The most frequent accidents result in injury when passengers fall out or when riders are hurt when the carts tip over."
Posted by Linda Chalat
-
Clint
Am I not just doing what you do to me?
As for dislike you, I do not dislike you, Jim, Pat, AG or any others on this site. I am disappointed with all your opinions of me but that is down to each of you. You have never met me, so I sometimes find it difficult to understand the attitudes. You seem to react to what some believe is a tone in my posts however, I feel it is like describing a glass of beer on the table. I say its half-full looking on hopefully the brighter side of all of you, yet you look at me and seem to say a glass half empty, well so be it, problem when you do that you automatically pick up on the negative side of all comments, perhaps missing the real meaning. But hay, that’s life and it is just too short to act like a Prima Donna or is that a Doner Kebab.
Melvyn
-
Clint
Am I not just doing what you do to me?
As for dislike you, I do not dislike you, Jim, Pat, AG or any others on this site. I am disappointed with all your opinions of me but that is down to each of you. You have never met me, so I sometimes find it difficult to understand the attitudes. You seem to react to what some believe is a tone in my posts however, I feel it is like describing a glass of beer on the table. I say its half-full looking on hopefully the brighter side of all of you, yet you look at me and seem to say a glass half empty, well so be it, problem when you do that you automatically pick up on the negative side of all comments, perhaps missing the real meaning. But hay, that’s life and it is just too short to act like a Prima Donna or is that a Doner Kebab.
Melvyn
Whatever.
Please respond to what I wrote about golf course architecture. I'd rather not have to type my response to YOUR questions again, seeing as though I've done that now several times and have had no response to them.
-
They have every right to design cartball courses, and I have every right to consider them as not golf courses. Ain't it cool how we all have rights?
There it is.
And certainly folks have the right to feel differently. And act on those beliefs. And stop wasting time castigating those who have the temerity to disagree. Truly, are we out to convince each other of anything on here? Is anyone open to their mind being changed?
We're not talking about ivory towers, we're ultimately talking about art and commerce. As to the commerce, the market will decide. As to art, well, to each his own.
"But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads"
Camus
-
8) so much fuss over concrete... what a shame that golf continues to test the limits of sustainable development in the 21st century ::) ??? :o ;) what will the future archeologists make of all those strange path forms scattered in such varied locales?
I've been walk-balling since 1961 and hope to get quite a few more rounds of walk-ball and cart-ball in..
-
If somebody buys a golf cart or rents one rote, they have "jumped the shark".
But if you are gonna jump the shark, you may as well do it in Harley style . . .
(http://www.cyberbiker.ca/gc5.jpg)
1983 Harley Davidson Golf Cart
-
Golf while riding in a cart is still a hell of a lot better than no golf at all!
I may or may not make it through this latest well started but now infernal thread but thanks, Pat, for that bit of common sense.
PS--great starting post, Jim. I hope as I wade forward the rest of the field will start trying to think about and carry on a conversation about what you said, but my hopes are not high.... :-[
-
main reason to walk (and why you boys on the other side of the pond get your shorts in a twist)-not to be seen in one of these!:
http://www.streetrodproductions.com/karts.php
or this!:
http://www.luxurycarts.com/images/custom_carts/h2_red_front.jpg
-
Rich,
There are a lot of good questions within the thread for Jim to answer - he'll just need a magnifying class and/or an intern to find them for him which is a shame.
Gents,
This would be a lot easier if we all accepted that people like to play the game differently - walking, walking/carting, cart golf only - let's agree to disagree, respect each others opinions and get back to the GCA/logistic/theory/design aspect of the conversation that Jim presented in the first post.
I am still very curious to know what the "create a walkable course or create a 'mostly cart golf course'" threshold is for Jim?
Is it based on the number of opportunities to incorporate "outside aesthetics" such as vistas, is it based on the number of opportunities to incorporate interesting features or terrain on the site that may be "away" from the core of the routing, etc.?
Is there ever a situation where building a "carts only" course would not have resulted in a "better" course in your opinion? Thus resulting in a good walking/carting optoin course.
-
This thread is a good example of why I have little interestest in participating here anymore.
A great start by Jim [I would like to cut and paste with your permission], about real world golf design....followed by a bunch of cyber space little dicks's [you know who you are] comments.
Thanks Ran, and I will stay in touch.
me too
-
Clint,
You're right, of course, but this thread was ONLY about 3 individuals ranting pages ago. They weren't seeking information, just a pulpit.
Melvyn, you're 100% right. So in order to understand, please fly over the US and visit Stone Eagle next July. If you walk and carry 36, I'd be willing to bet every participant on this website will call golf in the US "cartball".
Until then, you're blowing in the wind.
Why does he have to do that? The USGA has labeled it cartball, so technically he is already right. The USGA says if you are not walking you are not playing golf! Melvyn simply is in compliance with the USGA! How more American can he get?
:P
;)
What is a rant? Someone who would ask another who has openly stated he can no longer walk and play golf to walk and carry 36 in perhaps 110 degree heat at Stone Eagle. Or, someone who would remind us what the USGA has written on the matter?
Engh stated his points clearly and correctly, and those have been expounded and expanded upon long since by others. I think it is safe to say that none of the three are going to have eureka moments and acknowledge that:
a. there are courses that are simply better if they are less walkable, unfortunately, due to the available terrain
Most of what I assume you refer to as ranting has not been about severe terrain. But, when I asked you to identify the rants you were referring to you failed to respond.
b. that most golfers in 2009 don't especially want to walk anyway (with many of the 1500 on this site as notable exceptions, IMO.)
c. that there are golfers who, though willing, are unable to walk for one reason or another but still love the game
Where have any of those you have labelled ranters even remotely suggested forcing those people to walk?
d. that developers and housing often drive routing, rather than architecture alone
Perhaps you missed this thread where an important GCA makes the argument that from the very beginning that was a business model headed for failure..
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41475.0/
e. that there is a market system at work in the golf business, rather than simply "the game"
f. that architects are responsible to the person(s) paying them, rather than to someone's notion of the purity of the game.
You teach economics don't you? I am sure no one would guess! ;)
All of this and more has been pointed out over and over to these three, and yet they continue to rant and drive others who know far, far more about the subject (and profession) of GCA away from the site. Unfortunate, but the simple fact is that an open mind is required for education to occur. You tried; the failure is theirs, not yours.
And the evidence for an open mind is the ability to lay down absurd walking challenges?
-
This thread is a good example of why I have little interestest in participating here anymore.
A great start by Jim [I would like to cut and paste with your permission], about real world golf design....followed by a bunch of cyber space little dicks's [you know who you are] comments.
Thanks Ran, and I will stay in touch.
AG,
Would this be one of those rants you speak of?
-
This has been a very strange thread. I agree with Rich:
PS--great starting post, Jim. I hope as I wade forward the rest of the field will start trying to think about and carry on a conversation about what you said, but my hopes are not high.... :-[
As for the "is it really golf" debate, I think I understand the passion of the posts on both sides, but in the end it is purely a definitional debate, isn't it? More importantly, it has taken the conversation away from a discussion of the impact all this has on golf architecture. Not that the definitional debate isn't important, but on a website about golf architecture and in response to a thoughtful post by an architect, it seems that should be our focus, no matter the names we prefer for each of the two schools.
In the hopes of doing so . . .
A.G. Crockett wrote the following:
Engh stated his points clearly and correctly, and those have been expounded and expanded upon long since by others.
I disagree that Mr. Engh's points have been expounded and expanded upon long since. There have been many tangents and some accusations and name calling, but I must have missed the discussion part. Also, it is tough to discuss his post because it seems that a few posters don't want anyone else to challenge or even discuss Mr. Engh's post. If we are willing to challenge and discuss every other designers' views, I am not sure why Mr. Engh should be exempted?
A.G. then provides a useful list of what he got out of Mr. Engh's post. I tried to do the same thing above, only in a bit more detail. Some of A.G.'s points are worth considering, whether he thinks so or not.
a. there are courses that are simply better if they are less walkable, unfortunately, due to the available terrain
This really gets to the heart of the matter.
-- Is entirely accurate to say "if they are less walkable, unfortunately, due to the available terrain? Isn't it the designer's choice as to how to use that terrain that determines the relative walkability?
-- Why is this "unfortunate," if the course ends up the better for it? Maybe I have misunderstood, but it sure seems like Mr. Engh has turned these supposedly difficult sites toward his advantage and treats them as huge assets. These moderate and difficult sites give him the opportunity to build spectacular, inspiring, and powerful golf holes, don't they? So what is unfortunate about this?
- But from my perspective, the real crux is whether or not this approach produces better golf holes, and more importantly, better golf courses. I have my doubts, but I am curous what others think.
b. that most golfers in 2009 don't especially want to walk anyway (with many of the 1500 on this site as notable exceptions, IMO.)
I think this is true in this country at least, But I am not so sure it is as simple as all this.
- As I indicated above, I suspect that building a course for walkers might just produce better golf courses, whether anyone walks them or not.
- I am not sure this is the total percentage of cart riders is the most relevant question. Shouldn't we be wondering about things like who is more likely to be an avid golfer? Who is more likely to stick with the game for a lifetime? As the percentage of cart riders grows, isn't the number of golfers shrinking?
- In other words, shouldn't we be wondering about the long term impact the proliferation of cart courses may have on the game of golf? Does it make golf more sustainable or less? Do these courses take even longer to play? Do they bring people into the game who truly care about the game of golf and who will care about the values that supposedly are part of it? Etc.
c. that there are golfers who, though willing, are unable to walk for one reason or another but still love the game
No doubt, but I think we are confusing issues here. I don't think anyone is suggesting that architects should only build courses if they will prohibit riding. These riders can still ride at the vast majority of courses built for walking, but cart ball golf pushes walkers out of the game, at least at these courses.
d. that developers and housing often drive routing, rather than architecture alone
e. that there is a market system at work in the golf business, rather than simply "the game"
f. that architects are responsible to the person(s) paying them, rather than to someone's notion of the purity of the game.
All these individually have merit, but for me it makes sense to look at them as what Mr. Engh called something like the realities of the profession in an older post. I agree that these guys are running businesses and have the responsibilities and duties that go with it. And judging by Mr. Engh's success and the success of some others, they obviously know better than I do what works in their particular business model. That being said . . .
-- What is good for a real estate developer is not necessarily good for golf. What is good for Jim Engh's or Jeff Brauer's or Tom Doak's client won't necessarily produce the best golf courses. Likewise with each of these designer's business plans.
-- I think it is worth pointing out that your examples only become realities once the designer takes a job. Apparently some designers seem to have at least some control over they type of work they get and take, don't they? So I don't think it is quite accurate for us to say, "don't look at them, they are just doing their job."
-- Most importantly and directly, their business plans are really none of my business, on more levels than one. Why certain courses got built is interesting, but ultimately it is the course that matters.
-
My course is very walkable, yet I'd wager 80% of the members ride...and for many, they would not be able to play if they had to walk...what a sad world it would be if these guys did not get up out of the house, and come to the course, ride in their carts, and play golf with their buddies....
And ya know, the more I think about what Melvyn said about "no soul"...I believe he is the one that has "lost" his soul through his narrow feeling for "the game" of golf....
-
Craig
I have kept faith with the game all my life. It people like you who look for the easy way, the soft options. Riding a cart when totally able bodied or using all form of artificial distance aids because you do not feel confident enough to play the game by eye.
I question if you and others like you ever knew of the Spirit let alone the Soul of the Game. Certainly not enough to maintain its traditional ways. Jumping ship at the first opportunity because you cannot hack it, which says more about you than me.
If I am guilty of anything, it’s reminding those who have taken the easy, nay the simple options of not walking and not thinking for themselves.
Don’t blame me for your own inabilities, for failing to rise to the challenges when trying to play a game called Golf.
If there is a problem look to yourselves for creating it and also for the answers.
Stop using me as an excuse for your own failures when it comes to Golf.
Melvyn
PS Keep trying to reinvent the game on a weekly or monthly basis and soon there will not be much left, but then perhaps that is the real intention of some of the thoughtless.
-
This thread is a good example of why I have little interestest in participating here anymore.
A great start by Jim [I would like to cut and paste with your permission], about real world golf design....followed by a bunch of cyber space little dicks's [you know who you are] comments.
Thanks Ran, and I will stay in touch.
AG,
Would this be one of those rants you speak of?
No, it isn't. It's just Paul's dismay at what has happened to this thread. You may have noticed that Mr. Engh has declined to participate further in this, and I can't blame him, either.
Are you familiar with Paul Cowley's work, and do you know why his absence would be a loss to a site/DG about (supposedly) golf course architecture?
-
This thread is a good example of why I have little interestest in participating here anymore.
A great start by Jim [I would like to cut and paste with your permission], about real world golf design....followed by a bunch of cyber space little dicks's [you know who you are] comments.
Thanks Ran, and I will stay in touch.
AG,
Would this be one of those rants you speak of?
No, it isn't. It's just Paul's dismay at what has happened to this thread. You may have noticed that Mr. Engh has declined to participate further in this, and I can't blame him, either.
Are you familiar with Paul Cowley's work, and do you know why his absence would be a loss to a site/DG about (supposedly) golf course architecture?
Please define rant! Since you don't think "bunch of cyber space little dicks's" is ranting we are all curious to know what is ranting.
As far as Mr. Engh's participation is concerned, it has been suggested to me that he may be ashamed of his supporters.
I have not played a Paul Cowley course. In that sense, I am not familiar with his work.
Mr. Cowley does not think well of me, so I won't get into the loss.
-
This thread is a good example of why I have little interestest in participating here anymore.
A great start by Jim [I would like to cut and paste with your permission], about real world golf design....followed by a bunch of cyber space little dicks's [you know who you are] comments.
Thanks Ran, and I will stay in touch.
AG,
Would this be one of those rants you speak of?
No, it isn't. It's just Paul's dismay at what has happened to this thread. You may have noticed that Mr. Engh has declined to participate further in this, and I can't blame him, either.
Are you familiar with Paul Cowley's work, and do you know why his absence would be a loss to a site/DG about (supposedly) golf course architecture?
Please define rant! Since you don't think "bunch of cyber space little dicks's" is ranting we are all curious to know what is ranting.
As far as Mr. Engh's participation is concerned, it has been suggested to me that he may be ashamed of his supporters.
I have not played a Paul Cowley course. In that sense, I am not familiar with his work.
Mr. Cowley does not think well of me, so I won't get into the loss.
Exactly as I thought.
-
As far as Mr. Engh's participation is concerned, it has been suggested to me that he may be ashamed of his supporters.
who ever "suggested it to you" must love to hear mindless untrue gossip. When you little scamps get together you're worse than a sewing circle.
-
Melvyn...I walk as often as I can...and if I take a cart it's because my guest or golf partner NEEDS to ride...I don't use any distance aid except the old 150 yard trees they planted 40 years ago...and most importantly, I LOVE playing golf regardless of outcome, weather, etc...I work on the course 8 hours or more everyday and try to play two or three times a week after work...I live and breath golf...
I embody the spirit of the game, and find golf to be a soulful experience....
For you to insist that YOU, and ONLY YOU, know the spirit and soul of the game is BULLSHIT....the next thing you'll tell me is YOURS is the one and only true god....
-
My course is very walkable, yet I'd wager 80% of the members ride...and for many, they would not be able to play if they had to walk...what a sad world it would be if these guys did not get up out of the house, and come to the course, ride in their carts, and play golf with their buddies....
And ya know, the more I think about what Melvyn said about "no soul"...I believe he is the one that has "lost" his soul through his narrow feeling for "the game" of golf....
But without golf they could get to the Union Club or Red's a little earlier . . .
Seriously I don't think anyone has suggested that carts should not be allowed on courses where they are currently allowed. I don't even think Melvyn has taken this position. So I am not sure why we keep returning to it as if it is at issue here. It's not.
__________________________________
Do you suppose we could quit talking about who ranted against what and who needs to re-soul his golf shoes? Return to a discussion of golf course design, perhaps?
-
Seriously I don't think anyone has suggested that carts should not be allowed on courses where they are currently allowed. I don't even think Melvyn has taken this position. So I am not sure why we keep returning to it as if it is at issue here. It's not.
You're kidding, right? Have you read anything he's read over the last year?
-
Seriously I don't think anyone has suggested that carts should not be allowed on courses where they are currently allowed. I don't even think Melvyn has taken this position. So I am not sure why we keep returning to it as if it is at issue here. It's not.
You're kidding, right? Have you read anything he's read over the last year?
Clint, I really don't want to get too deep into that discussion, because it isn't really at issue, but I seem to recall him writing that people can do what they want, including riding in a cart. What he objects to is them calling it golf, because he feels that walking is an integral and indispensable part golf. It is extreme but I can understand where he is coming from even if I may not agree with it entirely. I don't think he goes so far as to say that no carts should ever be allowed on a golf course, just that the people in them are not really golfing. But I guess I could be wrong, and I haven't gone back and checked and don't plan to. As I said, I think it is beside the point.
EDIT: I went back and looked at some of the threads, briefly. Maybe he does take this position, I am not sure. But regardless it is really beside the topic at hand. He definitely excludes those who need a cart from his proclamation so can't we just leave it at that?
-
As far as Mr. Engh's participation is concerned, it has been suggested to me that he may be ashamed of his supporters.
who ever "suggested it to you" must love to hear mindless untrue gossip. When you little scamps get together you're worse than a sewing circle.
Jay,
Really.
Have you apologized to Mr Engh yet for starting a fire on this thread supposedly defending the erroneous fact that he does not design "cart golf" - aka - "mostly cart" courses (his words) even though he clearly stated he did in his initial post?
Based on the quality of his post, that was not followed up on - I would imagine because of the subsequent grade school garbage, it is clear that he does not need you to fight his battles.
I assume that you are including yourself in the "little scamp" camp because you fueled the initial fire that took the excellent thread topic from thoughts on designing courses on extreme to moderate sites and how that impacts the cart/walking relationship to page upon page of bickering and name calling interspersed with a call or two for reason.
Fortunately DM started another thread that basically speaks to the same topic - which has not fallen off such a pathetic cliff.
-
[But without golf they could get to the Union Club or Red's a little earlier . . .
Seriously I don't think anyone has suggested that carts should not be allowed on courses where they are currently allowed. I don't even think Melvyn has taken this position. So I am not sure why we keep returning to it as if it is at issue here. It's not.
quote]
I was on the practice tee the other day and one old duffer said to another "we're heading for the Mo Club to grab a burger and a beer, ya with us?"
Seriously...Melvyn says you have no soul, you don't have a clue about the "spirit" of the game, you are not "faithful" to the game, and basically, you are NOT playing golf if you ride a cart....
Pretty damn narrow view if you ask me...
-
Man, I have no clue hpw to make this quote thing work!
-
Melyvn,
I get you have your views on how the game "should be" played, so I'm not offering a rebutall with this post.....I'm just merely trying to explain why many need and/or prefer a cart.
1st) The easy one is those who need a cart. As Mr. Mucci explained for those getting on in years and those with legit physical issues, taking a cart is way they can enjoy the game again, because after all it is a game and its played for enjoyment. Why would anyone want to pay money, and take 4 hrs from thier day to chase a little white ball around and be in complete agony doing so because they are walking and thier feet, or legs, or whatever are just not up to the task?. I mean seriously, why would someone pay money to torture themselves like this? Certainly someone like Casey Martin would also fit into this category.
2nd) Those who want to take a cart. This is likely where more people have varying opinions, so lets look at a few scenarios. Why would someone want to risk dehyrdation, and pay for this experience because they are attempting to walk a 4.5 mile course when its 104 degrees? Its supposed to be for fun and enjoyment right, not boot camp!! ;D Suppose another guy works construction 50 hrs a week and on the weekend he wants to get off his feet and enjoy a relaxing round with his buddies? Or someone else who has a sore back or any other gaggle of temporary physical ailments? Or he just wants to fit in with his buddies who all want to take a cart because it seems like a fun thing to do??
In the end its just about having fun and enjoyment to whatever manner seems most interesting to you. Its a game meant for leisure, not as a serious, strict, regimental act. For those who get the most fun from walking the course, this is awesome, not a problem. And for those who have the most fun riding in a cart and having a few beers, this is fine, not a problem.
Finally, I think you are robbing yourself of the fun you could be having on the course playing the game, mingling with friends, having a few laughs, enjoying the outdoors....all because you refuse to ride in between shots. Life is short my friend, and you only get to do it once.... carpe diem, regardless of how you have to sieze it! :)
-
Craig. Can you argue that riding golf is just as spiritual as walking? I think its exponentially more spiritual to walk talk and convein(sp?) with nature.
-
I was on the practice tee the other day and one old duffer said to another "we're heading for the Mo Club to grab a burger and a beer, ya with us?"
With pepper-jack cheese, I hope. I have fond memories of afternoons at the Missoula Club-- a beer, a burger, and a good used book. Montana may still have some catching up to do with regard to world class courses, but it could give anyplace a run for its money with world class bars, or at least it could before the poker machine turned every place into a "casino." Maybe we need a new thread . . . are poker machines the cart-ball of Mt bars?
Seriously...Melvyn says you have no soul, you don't have a clue about the "spirit" of the game, you are not "faithful" to the game, and basically, you are NOT playing golf if you ride a cart....
Pretty damn narrow view if you ask me...
No doubt it is a narrow view, but if we set aside the vitriol and the religious references and the holier than thou proclamations bouncing back and forth, I think it is possible to understand both sides. Melvyn views walking as an integral and indispensable component of the game, and he has hundreds of years of history to support his claim, and without walking it just isn't golf to him. Many here are so passionate about the game that they aren't willing to give it up even when they are unable to walk, because however important the experience of walking may be to golf, there are many other compelling components to the game that keep them coming back despite physical obstacles. In both cases we have very passionate people who love whatever it is that they do with their balls and clubs, so to speak. I haven't met Melvyn but I don't doubt the sincerity or depth of his beliefs, nor do I doubt your beliefs. I have met Patrick, and seen his passion and his genuine interest in doing what is best for the game.
But frankly it has degenerated into a shouting match between brothers arguing over who loves Mom more.
And all passions aside, it is really tangential to Mr. Engh's post. Melvyn expressed his viewpoint to Mr. Engh and his is a viewpoint that should be heard, whether we agree or not, but isn't it about time we started focusing on trying to understand Mr. Engh's approach and the impact it is having on golf and golf architecture. I don't think he is an anomaly, but is a very good representation of what is going on and being celebrated in mainstream design, and so it seems like it is worthwhile to discuss how the approach impacts the game and the courses we all care about.
-
Thank you David. I have asked my question to Jim and given him an idea where I am coming from hopefully to understand the reason for my question.
As usual, it turns into an anti Melvyn action nearly every time I post, courtesy of the real closed minds on this group. I don't agree with some but I believe they have a right to their opinion. As and when I am wrong I apologize for my comments. Clearly actions that escape those belonging to the anti Melvyn Group. No Kalen I don't include you.
Its time, I hope for Jims the answer some of the question his comments have raised.
Melvyn
-
"Stop using me as an excuse for your own failures when it comes to Golf."
Melvyn, what would those failures be?
I am very happy with golf..
Adam...regarding riding in a cart...is it spiritually better than walking? Sometimes, but usually not...but sometime walking is impossible.
-
So your whole agenda has been to tell people NOT to play his courses. That's the whole purpose behind these relentless rude attacks, to demonize Jim and brand him as something you think is bad for the game because you simply won't tolerate something a little different from your own preferences and won't broaden your mind one jot...not even after only playing ONE of his courses.
This is Ran Morrissett's North Star, his raison d'etre...a place where we - his guests - are lucky enough to talk with, and even ask questions of the greatest minds in the golf design. You just treat people here - including architects who we should be overjoyed to get to know - as a footrag, cross-examining and overlawyering them. Give it a rest, will ya? This is a place where gentlemen are supposed to have fun, unwind, and exchange ideas. You seem to think there's a scoreboard somewhere. Well your theories will win more respect if you present them more politely instead of trying to conduct depositions and serving endless interrogatories. After the way you've treated Jim on this thread and the other...why should he even bother giving you the time of day?
You wanna know why I don't participate in threads with you any more? Because for a man who incessantly demands respect and acts with such superiority, you go about seeking it with a remarkable lack of skill and tact. You need to change your Internet persona from this overbearing, dominant condescension because people don't look forward to interacting with you with much pleasure. No one likes internet trolls, so try being nicer.
I know that you could be good company if you chose, and I know you want to be liked and respected. Well you'll go a lot further if you tone down the lawyer act here and let people be who they are and free to have their own opinions.
Great post, Jay
-
It seems to me that all of you have a partially correct position as to my opinion regarding cart path design, just not the entire perspective. It is simply a matter of degrees. Do I prefer to look for the best golf holes first? Yes. Would I make a 2 mile transition from one hole to the next to incorporate a feature into the course? No. Would I make you walk up a one foot incline to incorporate a wonderful grove of trees into a hole? Yes. Obviously, somewhere in the middle is the correct answer. And each situation has many other factors.
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. 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 thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course. Now, if it is a flattish piece of land that I have been given, the factor of walking is a much bigger consideration. For example, at our new project in the snad hills of Nebraska, called Awarii Dunes, I have set a paramount on walking. Cart paths will be green to tee only and consist of a mixture of native sand and small gravel. Tee placements have been located for ease of access from the previous green. I am very pleased to be able to take this position, still I suspect that we will have a significant amount of cart use. Unfortunately, that is the way things are.
It is possible to make a walkable course on a mountainous site by finding a way to make all of the holes at a similar elevation. The property in question would determine this. I’ve played a Banff Springs which is certainly a mountain course. It was built before the advent of carts, and is walkable (although all current green fees include cart rental). Of course, not all mountainous sites may allow for this. As Jim says – can a course be built there at all? And if so, it may be that any course built on the property would be either “cartball” by some definitions, or an “extreme walk” by others. But it seems like this is less controversial than what Jim says next, which begs the question, are creating a walkable course and creating an “exciting/fun” course mutually exclusive?
Well, of course not. There are lots of exciting and fun courses that are walkable. So the question then becomes, what features or course design options are exciting and fun that make a course less walkable? Speaking for myself, the two things that come to mind are elevated tees, and distances between holes that allow for use of natural features that aren’t as close together as you might like. Lots of folks on this thread have stated their ambivalence regarding elevated tees, but many people like them. They also afford great views which, on a course built more to appeal to the traveling golfer rather than the local, adds to the fun/excitement factor. And a given piece of property might have a certain number of great greensites, or places where fairways might naturally lie. Including the maximum number of these might end up in some longer distances between greens and tees. In cases like that it’s up to the architect to decide whether that distance is worth it, and the question of how many golfers might end up riding, regardless of the design, might come into play for the architect, per Jim’s quote above.
Of course, all of these considerations go out the window if your belief is that golf is a walking game only, and carts are at best inherently wrong, and at worst tantamount to the destruction of the game of golf. And if that is your feeling, then even Jim's new course in Nebraska won't please you, as they will apparently allow carts there as well, despite all best efforts by the architect to make the course as walkable as possible.
-
I played golf in China once and they forced us to have BOTH a caddie and a golf buggy...I made the caddie drive the golf buggy while I walked the most of course!! The woman caddie thought I was nuts!! I beat John Strawn on the 17th hole as well..
However, I have also used a buggy around Sand Hills for one round....Sorry.
We are in the middle of designing a course in Lisbon and if we didn't build cart paths no one apart from Chris Bonnington could play it.
-
Brian
Then please do not build cart paths. ;)
Carts, cart paths do not a game of golf make.
Melvyn
-
As far as Mr. Engh's participation is concerned, it has been suggested to me that he may be ashamed of his supporters.
who ever "suggested it to you" must love to hear mindless untrue gossip. When you little scamps get together you're worse than a sewing circle.
Come on Jay,
We get what seems like endless promotion of Mr. Engh's courses here only to find out that the promoter has been getting free golf, lodging, and meals. Makes them seem like they must be over hyped bits of mediocrity.
-
As far as Mr. Engh's participation is concerned, it has been suggested to me that he may be ashamed of his supporters.
who ever "suggested it to you" must love to hear mindless untrue gossip. When you little scamps get together you're worse than a sewing circle.
Come on Jay,
We get what seems like endless promotion of Mr. Engh's courses here only to find out that the promoter has been getting free golf, lodging, and meals. Makes them seem like they must be over hyped bits of mediocrity.
Oh...so I see, you just wanna stick it to Matt Ward! Well Ran liked his courses too. See Ran's interview with Jim:
http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/jim-engh-october-2006
So is Ran wrong too?
Just because you and david don't like Matt is no reason to demonize a hardworking architect who generously gives his time answer relentless questions from guys who think way more of themselves than they actually deserve.
-
...
Just because you and david don't like Matt is no reason to demonize a hardworking architect who generously gives his time answer relentless questions from guys who think way more of themselves than they actually deserve.
??? There have been several very thoughtful, polite, serious questions posed to Mr. Engh on this thread, and he has answered none of them. ???
...
Thought of the day: "when you choose to be a rebel, you can't be offended when someone has a differing opinion"
...
Besides, it seems Jim has already told us he won't be offecded by differing opinions.
-
My course is very walkable, yet I'd wager 80% of the members ride...and for many, they would not be able to play if they had to walk...what a sad world it would be if these guys did not get up out of the house, and come to the course, ride in their carts, and play golf with their buddies....
Then why is it that when I visit Australia and the UK I see plenty of older people (65+) walking and playing golf? Are you saying that there is a large percentage of people in those countries who are being frozen out of playing golf because riding in a golf cart is not the norm?
While keeping in mind that there are people who physically cannot play golf without a cart, I think a lot of people rely on a cart regardless of whether they can walk 18 or not. At my home course, which is very walkable btw, I see a large percentage of people below the age of 40 riding carts.
-
My course is very walkable, yet I'd wager 80% of the members ride...and for many, they would not be able to play if they had to walk...what a sad world it would be if these guys did not get up out of the house, and come to the course, ride in their carts, and play golf with their buddies....
Then why is it that when I visit Australia and the UK I see plenty of older people (65+) walking and playing golf? Are you saying that there is a large percentage of people in those countries who are being frozen out of playing golf because riding in a golf cart is not the norm?
While keeping in mind that there are people who physically cannot play golf without a cart, I think a lot of people rely on a cart regardless of whether they can walk 18 or not. At my home course, which is very walkable btw, I see a large percentage of people below the age of 40 riding carts.
One of the most discouraging things I've seen in the last ten years of golf was two young and obviously healthy guys playing in a buggy (golf cart) on the Balcomie Links at Crail. :P >:(
-
My course is very walkable, yet I'd wager 80% of the members ride...and for many, they would not be able to play if they had to walk...what a sad world it would be if these guys did not get up out of the house, and come to the course, ride in their carts, and play golf with their buddies....
Then why is it that when I visit Australia and the UK I see plenty of older people (65+) walking and playing golf? Are you saying that there is a large percentage of people in those countries who are being frozen out of playing golf because riding in a golf cart is not the norm?
While keeping in mind that there are people who physically cannot play golf without a cart, I think a lot of people rely on a cart regardless of whether they can walk 18 or not. At my home course, which is very walkable btw, I see a large percentage of people below the age of 40 riding carts.
One of the most discouraging things I've seen in the last ten years of golf was two young and obviously healthy guys playing in a buggy (golf cart) on the Balcomie Links at Crail. :P >:(
Funny you should mention Crail; I've told this story a bazillion times here, but I'll try it again. At one time, a club here in Atlanta had a yearly Ryder Cup style match with Crail at alternating sites. The first year that the match was to be here, the golfers on the high school team I was coaching at the time were conscripted to caddy for the Scots; the course was our home course and it was required by the club.
As it turned out, not one of the Scots walked, not one, and this on a very walkable course! (Though the course was much hillier than the coast of Scotland, I assure you.) My kids ended up being forecaddies for the weekend, except for a few of the locals who walked their home course and laughed about the "purists" from Scotland.
-
??? There have been several very thoughtful, polite, serious questions posed to Mr. Engh on this thread, and he has answered none of them. ???
I wouldn't take it personally, Bayley. I've never gotten the impression that he hangs out all THAT often on the site. Hopefully this thread will still be around when he stops back in.
-
Brian
Then please do not build cart paths. ;)
Carts, cart paths do not a game of golf make.
Melvyn
Melvyn,
I will not build a cart path if you guarantee me another project (of the same size) or pay for the food on my family's table and promise me that no other architect will take the project.
;)
Brian
-
Brian
Come to think of it, you have a point. You just can’t trust architects these days, just look what they have done to the good honest golf course. :o
Island Greens or Greens with water around them - boy that took some design initiative and really taxed the old grey cells. >:(
Cart Tracks more time appears to have been spent designing these abominations than perhaps on the whole course. >:( >:(
Long tracks between Greens & Tees, some nearly matching the length of the hole one is about to play and what an interesting journey on the eye, allowing the golfer full access to the glory and beauty of the golf course. :-\ :'(
Design features and some get paid for leaving a course looking like that. Real design intent, oh yes pull the other one, not one of these in my book adds to the enjoyment of the game of Golf. :( :( :(
Of course Brian, I know you would never ever dream of committing any of the above crimes against golf or golfers. ;)
Is there any truth in the rumour that a Spanish club is considering replacing carts with an ex-Disneyland Mono-Rail system with individual cars to carry 4 golfers and their bags to help speed up the game. Of course, it means that they expect every golfer to land in the same area as the rest of his friends, well if they can do that on an Island Green why not on the Fairway, seems to be the thought behind the idea. Well at least it proves that some architects do have some ideas at times. ;D
Of course I jest, but by providing a service people will use it. The interesting thing would be not to provide it and just watch and learn. That will I know not happen but it would be a worthwhile study IMHO. 8)
Melvyn
-
I have walked Pradera every time I have played it with no problem whatsoever. The notion that Pradera is unwalkable is overrated!
Jay, the above proclamation is a bit confusing. A brief search for Pradera on Youtube yielded this video result:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUMQHkOOrF0&feature=related
-
I have walked Pradera every time I have played it with no problem whatsoever. The notion that Pradera is unwalkable is overrated!
Jay, the above proclamation is a bit confusing. A brief search for Pradera on Youtube yielded this video result:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUMQHkOOrF0&feature=related
Now that's funny. "Damn the internet!" ;D
-
I walked that day. I took a ride TO THE TEE BOX BETWEEN TWO HOLES OR THE PRACTICE AREA AND THE TEE SO TONY COULD SHOOT THAT VIDEO! At the end of the video you see me take my driver and walk, which is what I did all day. We kept the clubs on the cart, but I walked...and there are plenty of guys here that play with me that know that, including GCAers who were there that day. Sorry, "Jon" but nice try!!
-
I have walked Pradera every time I have played it with no problem whatsoever. The notion that Pradera is unwalkable is overrated!
Jay, the above proclamation is a bit confusing. A brief search for Pradera on Youtube yielded this video result:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUMQHkOOrF0&feature=related
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard; and 't shall go hard
-
...and I thought we weren't supposed to have any FAKE NAMES on GCA? "Jon Spaulding?"
-
I have walked Pradera every time I have played it with no problem whatsoever. The notion that Pradera is unwalkable is overrated!
Jay, the above proclamation is a bit confusing. A brief search for Pradera on Youtube yielded this video result:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUMQHkOOrF0&feature=related
Jay,
I'm sure Melyvn was very bummed to not see the golf cart and all get sucked into that "vortex".
P.S. Did the "late-night" rally work? ;D
-
Jay, there is about 50-60 people on this board who can testify to Jon Spaulding being real. After they see him hit a tee shot, they never forget. The man is more "real" than just about anybody I've ever met.
-
The man is more "real" than just about anybody I've ever met.
And believe me, David Stamm should know!
-
There IS a lot of fuss over concrete. ???
-
Well there are also about ten people who can testify that I walked Pradera that day too...including GCAers Adam Clayman and Eddie Peck. They played with me that whole trip where I walked every place we played...Ballyneal, Fossil, Pradera and Red Hawk...lincluding 36 one day. That video section of me iin the cart was from the PRACTICE AREA to the FIRST TEE. I walked the rest of the course, and Jim, Adam, Eddie and Tony saw.
So Jon has no business trying to smear me. I have never done anything to him for him to come on here and try a bush-league and disingenuous attack like that. Jon Spaulding you were dead wrong and mean-spirited for no reason, and you owe me an apology...and you owe the website one too.
This is Ran's North star...a place where gentlermen and friends are supposed to unwind, meet each other and learn from each other...and people like him sully it every time the slime their way over here from...wherever else they hang out ;) That's exactly the kind of nonsense that suppresses discussion of architecture, and makes others in the industry...like archies, writers, and course owners NOT want to participate...and that hurts all of us and Ran. Think how much better this place is without the few people who think they score points zinging others to make themselves look good on an Internet bulletin board. Some people really need to get a life...and stop being resentful of those who do.
-
what if we just paved over every course and simply started racing the carts about?
-
what if we just paved over every course and simply started racing the carts about?
Then as Phish says..."WE CAN STAGE...A RUNAWAY GOLF CART MARATHON!!!!!"
-
...
Let me put it this way to the business people out there. You have opened this great new Chinese restaurant, here in the US, that is intended to support your family. The food is the best in the state. 70% of your customers prefer to use a fork as opposed to chop sticks. Do you stand your ground and go out of business because forks are not traditional? Or do you give them nice quality forks with a great dining experience and have happy customers?
...
You need a better example. Using chop stick takes considerable training and practice. Whereas, everyone thinks they can drive a cart.
Considerable training and practice?! To use chop sticks?! Any idiot with an opposable thumb can learn to use chopsticks in two sittings max.
Jay,
I assume you are speaking of "gentlemanly" posts like this one of yours. ::)
-
Jay -
Your assessments of walkability in which your golf clubs are being ferried about by an outside agency are not particularly notable.
-
It was an event, Mike. Haven't you ever played an event where they make you put the clubs on a cart? Even some private clubs in Maine make you do that.
Again...Adam Clayman and Eddie Peck and others were there the whole trip. They know I walk and carry my clubs whenever I'm allowed. And moreover, anyone who played in the Dixie Cup with Mike W and Bill and Dick Daley and I knows that not only do I walk and carry whenever I can, but I walked all three days that event with shin splints so bad I had to ice my ankles for an hour each day after play.
You don't klnow anything with any personal knowledge, Michael Moore, so take your ad hominem attacks and march straight back to Maine...leave this kind of "discussing architecture" to other sites ;) much lesser sites ;)
-
I'm just saying that walking the course without golf clubs on your back is not useful when making an honest assessment of a course's walkability. Right?
-
I'm thinking of taken up cart balling on the understanding that I can use a M1 Abrams instead of a cart
Sort the men out from the boys.
Melvyn
-
I'm just saying that walking the course without golf clubs on your back is not useful when making an honest assessment of a course's walkability. Right?
WRONG! I walked that course PLENTY with my clubs on my back too...and lakota and redlands.
By your logic...anyone who takes a caddie to carry his clubs hasn't really walked then, have they?
-
Jay, you've got a lot of nerve demanding apologies. Go back and review some of your posts on this thread. Hardly gentlemanly. And you've got to realize that much of this entire fuss about Jim Engh is because you and a few others have been misrepresenting his work for the past several years, pretending it was something it clearly was not. Should we all expect an apology for that?
...and I thought we weren't supposed to have any FAKE NAMES on GCA? "Jon Spaulding?"
Stamm always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Jon Spaulding.
-
So Jon has no business trying to smear me. I have never done anything to him for him to come on here and try a bush-league and disingenuous attack like that. Jon Spaulding you were dead wrong and mean-spirited for no reason, and you owe me an apology...and you owe the website one too.
Jay, I would take your objection here a little more serioously if it weren't so damned funny that Jon Googled Pradera and you came up in a cart! ;D
Jon is a good guy (if a bit wild off the tee ;D), give him a break and don't get your hackles up!
No apology required in my humble opinion, no need to look for a fight!
-
This is Ran's North star...a place where gentlermen and friends are supposed to unwind, meet each other and learn from each other...and people like him sully it every time the slime their way over here from...wherever else they hang out ;) That's exactly the kind of nonsense that suppresses discussion of architecture, and makes others in the industry...like archies, writers, and course owners NOT want to participate...and that hurts all of us and Ran. Think how much better this place is without the few people who think they score points zinging others to make themselves look good on an Internet bulletin board. Some people really need to get a life...and stop being resentful of those who do.
Jay,
I can only assume that you are referring to yourself here.
While some people were trying to have a discussion about Jim Engh's initial post you started with your less than witty one liners and accusations that people were trying to condemn Jim' theory on golf course design while they were just asking him questions about his post and his reasons for designing "mostly cart courses" = aka - cart golf courses - versus potentially walkable courses.
After you apologize to Jim Engh for trying to misrepresent his statements in the first post - while trying to defend him from something that he is clearly comfortable with as part of his design philosophy - let us know.
-
Yeah right...typical behavior of you guys...blame the person you abuse. "There is no worse scoundrel than someone who tries to blame the person they abused to begin with." - Patrick O'Brian
Hold your breath waiting, Rob.
And no, Bill, I disagree with you, that was a cheap and disingenuous shot by Jon, and he did it at the behest of others. You know damn well I walk everywhere because you saw me icing my ankle at the Dixie every day after walking each round.
-
...
And no, Bill, I disagree with you, that was a cheap and disingenuous shot by Jon, and he did it at the behest of others. You know damn well I walk everywhere because you saw me icing my ankle at the Dixie every day after walking each round.
This is interesting. Jay can read the non-existent (Jay's earlier conclusion) Jon's mind and know whether or not he is being straightforward.
Not only that, he apparently knows all the personal communications that Jon has had. Perhaps from reading Jon's mind or perhaps from reading 1500 other minds. Such abilities are hard to imagine by we mere mortals.
He also demonstrates that with a few samples he believes we mortals should be able to draw absolute conclusions about all occurrences. He neglects to remember we are mere mortals and cannot draw such all encompassing conclusions.
-
Jay,
Your hypocrisy is spectacular - I never called you any names, just presented your argument back to you because it made absolutely no sense. Instead of having a civil debate about your "Jim Engh is not talking about creating cart golf courses" claim, which was clearly erroneous, you took the low road and started insulting my website and public initiative to rate courses in the US for walkability.
I don't think this is "Jay Flemma can say whatever he wants and not be questioned.com"?
I will certainly not "hold my breath waiting" for you to apologize to anyone (nice edit from your first attempt at writing the post by the way ::) ) - because I could care less what you do.
You SHOULD apologize to Jim Engh for hi-jacking his thread and putting words and thoughts in his mouth when we all know he is more than capable of representing himself and communicating his design philosophy to the treehouse as HE sees fit.
Your statements and holier than thou claims on this thread are pretty bizarre for someone who supposedly wants to see everyone get along in a civil manner and have insightful debates on topics of golf course architecture.
Your adamant denial of riding in a golf cart is also quite strange. That is your choice Jay, there is nothing wrong with taking a cart if you choose to do so - Is there?
-
Jay, I don't think anyone really cares whether you rode between holes at Pradera. Probably a good choice as it seems to have been quite a drive. I think the problem is that much of what you have claimed about Jim Engh's courses is directly contrary to what Jim Engh has repeatedly written. And those of us who you and others have been slamming seem to have had a pretty good grasp of his approach all along. So when it turns out that even your claims about "always" walking these courses turns out to be false, well it just seems to encapsulate much of what you've written about Mr. Engh's courses. And like Robb, I don't understand it. You and a few others have really done Mr. Engh a disservice, because had you guys just been forthright about his work, this discussion would have ended long ago. As it is, we aren't even to the interesting part of the conversation, yet.
One more thing. I might have it wrong, but in the video you seem to be comparing to Jim Engh to Led Zeppelin. What do you mean? Might it have something to do with a Cartpath to Heaven?
Pardon me. I just couldn't resist.
-
Easy guys, stop the bickering, kiss and make up ;D
-
This thread is a good example of why I have little interestest in participating here anymore.
A great start by Jim [I would like to cut and paste with your permission], about real world golf design....followed by a bunch of cyber space little dicks's [you know who you are] comments.
Thanks Ran, and I will stay in touch.
AG,
Would this be one of those rants you speak of?
Jim Engh, a golf course architect, make an interesting post which gets twisted into some ridiculous banter and he never returns to comment. Another architect, Paul Cowley, comments this thread is why he doesn't post any more - and he is ridiculed.
Sad indeed when the little dicks chase off the Big Sticks.
-
Jay, I don't think anyone really cares whether you rode between holes at Pradera. Probably a good choice as it seems to have been quite a drive. I think the problem is that much of what you have claimed about Jim Engh's courses is directly contrary to what Jim Engh has repeatedly written. And those of us who you and others have been slamming seem to have had a pretty good grasp of his approach all along. So when it turns out that even your claims about "always" walking these courses turns out to be false, well it just seems to encapsulate much of what you've written about Mr. Engh's courses. And like Robb, I don't understand it. You and a few others have really done Mr. Engh a disservice, because had you guys just been forthright about his work, this discussion would have ended long ago. As it is, we aren't even to the interesting part of the conversation, yet.
One more thing. I might have it wrong, but in the video you seem to be comparing to Jim Engh to Led Zeppelin. What do you mean? Might it have something to do with a Cartpath to Heaven?
From Tony Korologos, the man who shot the video:
"Jesus Christ some people are idiots. 1st I asked Jay to sit in the cart so I could put the video camera on him. 2nd you see him start walking after he takes a bite out of his hamburger."
Mike M...thank you for having the courage to stand up to them.
-
EDITED OUT MY CONFUSED COMMENT TO MIKE MCGUIRE.
_____________________________________
Jay,
Not sure why you are so defensive about this cart thing. It is not as if anyone caught Melvyn in a cart. Besides, shouldn't you be riding in a cart anyway, so as play the course as the architect intended?
As for your friend I don't know him and he doesn't know me, and I fail to understand why he feels compelled to call anyone here an idiot. We didn't repeatedly claim we "always" walked these courses, and we didn't post a video on youtube of you riding in between holes.
Which reminds me . . . I think you must have misspoke when you claimed that the cart ride was only from the practice area to the first tee. I've never even played Pradera, but I'd be willing to bet that the video was shot between the 9th hole and the 10th hole, with a stop for a burger in between. How about the loser donates $100 dollars to gca.com? Do we have a bet?
-
Carts keep people playing golf longer in their life span period. That is not a bad thing.
Anthony
-
Anthony. You are probably correct, but no one (except for maybe Melvyn) is talking about banning golf carts. We are talking about designing golf courses only appropriate for carts on sites where a walkable course would have been possible. People ride on walkable courses all the time. No one (except for maybe Melvyn) is complaining about that. Some of us though find the concept of building cart ball courses on walkable sites worth exploring.
You played Castle Stewart recently, right? They allow carts, don't they? But they also allow walking and I've heard the course is quite walkable, even for 36 a day. Now imagine that they had completely disregarded walking in the design, and made if just for Cart Golf. I've heard their are two levels, so presumably they could have had a number of spectacular holes playing from the top level to the bottom level and imagine how spectacular the view would have been. And the carts could just zip right up to do it again.
Would Castle Stewart have been a better course had they designed for carts only so that they could further maximize the spectacular setting? Or would they have lost something important in the process?
That is more in line what what we are trying to discuss.
-
From Paul Cowley on Sept 24:
"This thread is a good example of why I have little interestest in participating here anymore.
A great start by Jim [I would like to cut and paste with your permission], about real world golf design....followed by a bunch of cyber space little dicks's [you know who you are] comments.
Thanks Ran, and I will stay in touch."
Now THAT is one Goddamned crying shame!!! There are probably 1476 participants on this website who could learn more about golf course architecture, past, present and future by spending a single day on a golf course site and project with Paul Cowley than they could in twenty years on this website!
-
David,
I think comparing Scotish/links courses to American courses is a little unfair. Respectfully the golf cultures are simply worlds apart. What is acceptable in one country is taboo in another. In the US we are lazier, more obese, have land where there are greater distances between holes as compare to our UK brethren. It just makes since to give people what they want/need. And What golfers want/need in the US and UK is very different. And savy architects realize this.
Anthony
-
"I think comparing Scotish/links courses to American courses is a little unfair."
Anthony:
I don't know if it's unfair but it isn't particularly intelligent, productive or informative.
Comparing probably isn't even what we should be doing between the two anyway; we should probably be contrasting them and if we do we very well might find the theory of a "Big World" in golf and golf architecture makes sense and is actually healthy for golf in the long run.
-
Carts keep people playing golf longer in their life span period. That is not a bad thing.
Anthony
But amigo, do carts shorten their life span?
My dad is 84 and still walking and playing. When he seemed headed for adult onset diabetes, his doctor told him to walk 10000 steps per day. All evidence of the diabetes has gone away and he has started golfing more. And of course we all know a sample size of one proves all arguments. ;D
-
Personally, there are a handful of players at my home course that could not play if it was walking only. They will live longer because they have social interaction and friendship that they would not have without golf/carts. There is much more to golf than physical activity, It aids health by providing a social network, friendship,felliowship and more. Without concrete these aspects would stop for many people that i consider friends and vital elements to my home club. And let's face it, land that courses are built on in the UK are completly different than the land used for golf in the US.
Anthony
-
Jay -
I started off this discussion a few weeks ago because I was deeply impressed by the photos of Jim Engh's work, and I was moved by just how different it was from New England. Jim's response was fascinating and appreciated by all, and, although it is not my cup of tea, I have absolutely no problem with the "spectacular cartball" school of architecture.
I am confused by your claim that Pradera is a walkable course. Yes, it's true, as Steven Wright quipped, "everywhere is within walking distance". But l have some serious questions about the following green to tree trek that deserve an answer.
(http://www.summersoccer.com/golf/images/pradera.jpg)
From the green to the penultimate tee, along the path, is roughly 500 yards. As the crow flies it is about 230 yards.
Is it possible to walk directly from the green to the tee here? Judging from the switchback it looks pretty steep.
At the aforementioned outing when your clubs were on the cart and you were walking, did you really walk this one? If so, how long did it take you to catch up to your group?
When you walk and carry at Pradera, how do you feel when you arrive at this tee? How long does it take to recover before you are ready to tee off?
-
Anthony,
Absolutely, health is enhanced by a social network, friendship, fellowship and more. While a great place to get these are at a golf club, I would suggest these can be obtained equally well at many other organizations not limited to church, bridge club, and so on. However, I can think of nothing that makes excercise more enjoyable than walking and playing golf.
PS, if you think I am bad at golf, you haven't seen me dance yet.
;D
-
Honestly though, Jim Engh is not the Led Zeppelin of Golf Course Design. That title most assuredly belongs to Max Behr. (Perhaps more accurately Led Zeppelin is the Max Behr of Rock and Roll.) You see, you don't get to that level of notoriety without making some bad decisions, drinking too much, and throwing some punches in anger.
Mr. Engh seems to be too much of a gentleman for that.
-
Bandon Trails is a perfect example of a site that could have been turned into cart golf (in theory - obviously Mr Keiser wanted a walking only course).
Instead, Bill Coore took a ton of time to walk the property and develop a fantastic routing that is walkable (yes, there is a long walk between the 13th Green and 14th Tee if the shuttle is not there).
Anthony,
Do you think that Bandon Trails would be the course it is if it had been designed for carts? Would the transition from dunes to meadows to forest appear so seamless? Would an architect have taken such care in ensuring that transition? Would the architect have routed more up and down the hills to maximize views instead of along them?
If carts were allowed at BT I am sure that MANY golfers would take them - I think it is good if golfers have a choice and Trails is not the easiest walk in the world - BUT, because it is walkable, golfers can choose to walk the course and experience the routing as the architect intended.
This is the 50/50 question back to Jim Engh - If a course could be laid out that is walkable, on a site with some elevation change and/or hills, does "cart golf" really lead to a better course? Are there any examples of this?
-
David,
I think comparing Scotish/links courses to American courses is a little unfair. Respectfully the golf cultures are simply worlds apart. What is acceptable in one country is taboo in another. In the US we are lazier, more obese, have land where there are greater distances between holes as compare to our UK brethren. It just makes since to give people what they want/need. And What golfers want/need in the US and UK is very different. And savy architects realize this.
Anthony
I don't get it. The people that want/need to ride can ride. But why would they want/need everyone else to ride as well? I am NOT talking about walking only courses. I am talking about riding only courses. What possible justification is there for leaving the walkers out when the land allows for walking?
Plus, when it comes to figuring out truly excellent golf course design I don't know that I am willing to accept that we ought to be singing the praises of those who design for what you describe as "lazy and obese," and exclude those who aren't. Mcdonald's gives the "lazy and obese" what they want. So should we consider it to be among our finest dining establishments?
Anyway, I am sure that the American designers and builders would appreciate you considering Castle Stewart so Scottish. Not sure if you put it together, but the other designers were the same as designed and built Rustic Canyon (with Geoff Shackelford.) It is a modern American course that is very walkable. Did Gil, Jim, and Jeff miss the boat? Why should they have included walking if most will ride? Just think they could have plastered elevated tees up and down the canyon walls to bring in more spectacular shots. Would it have been a better course if they had?
Castle Stewart didn't have to be a typical walking course. Isn't their target customer the vacationing golfer? So why worry about what the locals want? Would it have been a better course if built for carts only?
-
Honestly though, Jim Engh is not the Led Zeppelin of Golf Course Design. That title most assuredly belongs to Max Behr. (Perhaps more accurately Led Zeppelin is the Max Behr of Rock and Roll.) You see, you don't get to that level of notoriety without making some bad decisions, drinking too much, and throwing some punches in anger.
Mr. Engh seems to be too much of a gentleman for that.
With all due respect to Mr. Engh, Mr. Behr, and Mr. Zeppelin (may I call you Led?) Jay's cart ride video brought this to mind and I cannot shake it. To the tune of Stairway to Heaven (in case you can't figure it out.)
There's a Flemma who's sure
All Engh's cartball is gold
And he’s riding a cartpath to heaven.
But when Engh builds there he knows
that the holes aren’t very close
with a cart he can get what he came for.
Ooh, ooh, and he's riding the cartpath to heaven.
There's a tee on a hill
But he wants to be sure
'Cause you know these paths can get confusing.
Zoom past the closer ground
To find another thrill,
walking golf just isn’t as exciting.
Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it makes me wonder.
There's a feeling I get
When I look to the West,
Ol’ Tom’s soul is shrieking at Cartball.
In our thoughts we have seen
Miles of cartpaths through the trees
And long trips from every green,
Trading subtlety for views from each tee.
Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it really makes me wonder.
. . .
(skipped a few verses and solos, to up-tempo crescendo)
And as he rides on down the road
“It’s easy walking” we’ve been told
But Engh tells us what we know
Jay writes his white lies to show
He can turn cartball into gold.
Then Jon said click the link below
Youtube will come to you at last.
With carts for one and carts for all
Jay says he walked but then he rolls
And he’s riding a cartpath to heaven.
-
quality work Mr Moriarty..but now I've got Stairway to Heaven stuck as a background tune in brain ::)
-
....not sure why I am back here, but it probably has to do with a person I respect a lot...Peter Pallotta...who has indicated he is gone as a result of this thread. A real loss.
Melvyn's game evolved hundreds of years ago in a terrain and climate that was suited for its development...lets call it British Isles Golf.
Enter an attempt to recreate the same in North America...in an entirely different terrain and climate, and we have what has evolved into a different game....lets call it American Golf.
At first Americans built golf courses on land that was fairly easy to build on.
Later they built courses on land where they liked to live and spend time.....lakes, mountains, deserts etc,...and they developed a means to allow them to do so on these challenging terrains.....enter paved cart paths and golf carts.
These two forms of golf are apples and oranges....as is this debate.
-
Matt,
My goal in writing it out was to get it out of my head. Better in your head than mine.
David.
_____________________________________
....not sure why I am back here, but it probably has to do with a person I respect a lot...Peter Pallotta...who has indicated he is gone as a result of this thread. A real loss.
Melvyn's game evolved hundreds of years ago in a terrain and climate that was suited for its development...lets call it British Isles Golf.
Enter an attempt to recreate the same in North America...in an entirely different terrain and climate, and we have what has evolved into a different game....lets call it American Golf.
At first Americans built golf courses on land that was fairly easy to build on.
Later they built courses on land where they liked to live and spend time on...lakes, mountains, deserts etc,...and they developed a means to allow them to do so on these challenging terrains.....enter paved cart paths and golf carts.
These two forms of golf are apples and oranges....as is this debate.
Paul, I understand what you are saying and appreciate your take on the matter. But like with Anthony's point above I don't think we are on the same page. Most of the discussion has focused on courses built on land that could be used for a walking course, but is instead used for courses that don't reasonably allow for walking. So it is not a matter of necessity (because of the severity of the land) but a matter of choice.
-
Paul,
I agree with your categorization of 1) British Isles Golf/Mostly Early American Golf on great sites that are easily walkable, and 2) Cart Golf courses that are built on severe terrain where Americans like to vacation or on flat/severe terrain where there is a RE development that forces an architect to route across roads, etc.
But is there not a third terrain that in Jim Engh's words is "50/50" - a site that could yield a walkable course if the developer and architect were to go that route?
- RCCC, Bandon Trails, Tobacco Road, are just three examples of this type of terrain.
On terrain that is potentially walkable, is it always better for an architect to build a "cart golf" course instead of a "walking optional" course?
Will "cart golf" courses really yield a better golfing experience?
I just do not see the evidence, but it certainly may exist.
From the beginning of the debate on this thread, I think that both DM and I have been advocating for "golfer's choice" as the best way to design a course on these 50/50 walkable sites. Let people walk if they want or ride if they want, it is totally up to them, but at least give the golfer a choice because no one has presented evidence that a "carts only" course is going to be significantly better than a walkable one.
-
David....if that is the debate here....then I can assure you that most GC Architects would always prefer designing a course that is walkable.....if the terrain allows for it
-
Bandon Trails is a perfect example of a site that could have been turned into cart golf (in theory - obviously Mr Keiser wanted a walking only course).
Instead, Bill Coore took a ton of time to walk the property and develop a fantastic routing that is walkable (yes, there is a long walk between the 13th Green and 14th Tee if the shuttle is not there).
Anthony,
Do you think that Bandon Trails would be the course it is if it had been designed for carts? Would the transition from dunes to meadows to forest appear so seamless? Would an architect have taken such care in ensuring that transition? Would the architect have routed more up and down the hills to maximize views instead of along them?
If carts were allowed at BT I am sure that MANY golfers would take them - I think it is good if golfers have a choice and Trails is not the easiest walk in the world - BUT, because it is walkable, golfers can choose to walk the course and experience the routing as the architect intended.
This is the 50/50 question back to Jim Engh - If a course could be laid out that is walkable, on a site with some elevation change and/or hills, does "cart golf" really lead to a better course? Are there any examples of this?
Rob,
I think the question of if a course should be walking only,cart only, or a choice lies in your target audience and the land the course is on. Bandon was specifically built with walking golfers in mind. The courses at The Villages were built for old people that need carts. It is nice to see that designers can build both kinds of courses so the masses can enjoy the game of golf. Would cart paths deminish the courses at Bandon? Without a doubt. But there are a lot more residential courses out there than there are Bandons. You just cannot apply the same reasoning to two totally different situations.
Anthony
-
David,
I think comparing Scotish/links courses to American courses is a little unfair. Respectfully the golf cultures are simply worlds apart. What is acceptable in one country is taboo in another. In the US we are lazier, more obese, have land where there are greater distances between holes as compare to our UK brethren. It just makes since to give people what they want/need. And What golfers want/need in the US and UK is very different. And savy architects realize this.
Anthony
I don't get it. The people that want/need to ride can ride. But why would they want/need everyone else to ride as well? I am NOT talking about walking only courses. I am talking about riding only courses. What possible justification is there for leaving the walkers out when the land allows for walking?
Plus, when it comes to figuring out truly excellent golf course design I don't know that I am willing to accept that we ought to be singing the praises of those who design for what you describe as "lazy and obese," and exclude those who aren't. Mcdonald's gives the "lazy and obese" what they want. So should we consider it to be among our finest dining establishments?
Anyway, I am sure that the American designers and builders would appreciate you considering Castle Stewart so Scottish. Not sure if you put it together, but the other designers were the same as designed and built Rustic Canyon (with Geoff Shackelford.) It is a modern American course that is very walkable. Did Gil, Jim, and Jeff miss the boat? Why should they have included walking if most will ride? Just think they could have plastered elevated tees up and down the canyon walls to bring in more spectacular shots. Would it have been a better course if they had?
Castle Stewart didn't have to be a typical walking course. Isn't their target customer the vacationing golfer? So why worry about what the locals want? Would it have been a better course if built for carts only?
David,
One question at a time please you know how my mind works.
I agree that if people want to walk they should be allowed to. That makes perfect sense. I think some places can get more players on the course and thus have more profit by not having walkers slow down the pace of play ie Sawgrass or Harbor Town. Two that can easily be walked.
I agree walking courses have a better feel and aesthetically look better. Which should make them rank higher architecturally.
As far as Castle Stuart. The target audience is the walking golfer. At Rustic Canyon the target audience is anyone who will pay. Two totally different cultures and golf IQ's of the typical person that plays these two courses. Same designer but different cultures.
The locals at Castle Stuart want the same thing as the vacationing golfer...a walking course.
At Rustic Canyon we talked about why they did not put elevated tees up on the canyon. I think it would have been better for shot value and to take advantage of the view. I forget why it was not done. Do you remember?
Respectfully,
Anthony
-
Matt,
My goal in writing it out was to get it out of my head. Better in your head than mine.
David.
_____________________________________
....not sure why I am back here, but it probably has to do with a person I respect a lot...Peter Pallotta...who has indicated he is gone as a result of this thread. A real loss.
Melvyn's game evolved hundreds of years ago in a terrain and climate that was suited for its development...lets call it British Isles Golf.
Enter an attempt to recreate the same in North America...in an entirely different terrain and climate, and we have what has evolved into a different game....lets call it American Golf.
At first Americans built golf courses on land that was fairly easy to build on.
Later they built courses on land where they liked to live and spend time on...lakes, mountains, deserts etc,...and they developed a means to allow them to do so on these challenging terrains.....enter paved cart paths and golf carts.
These two forms of golf are apples and oranges....as is this debate.
Paul, I understand what you are saying and appreciate your take on the matter. But like with Anthony's point above I don't think we are on the same page. Most of the discussion has focused on courses built on land that could be used for a walking course, but is instead used for courses that don't reasonably allow for walking. So it is not a matter of necessity (because of the severity of the land) but a matter of choice.
David,
I would respectfully disagree about what "most of the discussion has focused on" during this thread. This thread comes down to two things.
One is what Jim Engh meant by "moderate land" in the first post, and what should be done with it when building a golf course. I took that to mean land where walking would be, at best, challenging, and where few would choose to walk even if the course was constructed that way. Others, and I think you are in this camp, seemed to view the word "moderate" as land where walking would be more of a 50-50 proposition. Unfortunately, Mr. Engh has never returned to clear that up, and I can't really blame him.
The second theme, however, has been a steadfast refusal by two individuals to accept that, for a variety of reason, carts are part of the world of golf today, EVER! This includes such inanities as whether or not riding in a cart is even golf, whether or not there is ever any reason for a player to ride, whether or not a player should give up the game if they can't walk, and the demonization of ANY GCA that builds a course that is essentially unwalkable, or even difficult. This has been the unfortunate part of the thread, and I don't see it stopping.
I'll give you and others credit for at least attempting to keep the discussion on point. But I think you are fighting a losing battle. You might as well try to teach calculus to poorly behaved first graders.
-
So we've lost Peter Pallotta and Jim Engh all because of David M...that's a sad loss for the site.
Guys, just ignore him. One of these days, that kid will grow up.
-
AC
Having already mentioned you will not respond to any of my posts, I however have no problem on that front and am happy to express my own opinion.
I respect your opinion even thought I don’t agree, but I don’t call it trip, that just goes to show all, the tolerance you have for the opinions of others.
This is no longer about carts or no carts but the right to voice ones opinion on this site. Mr. Crockett you are wrong and out of order, by all means disagree we me, and others, but tring to intimidate others by trashing their views and comments is not what this site, I believe is all about.
Golf is based upon walking, even those on carts have to get off their backside and walk to the ball and around the Greens, without walking there would be no golf. I say that carts are just another aid for golfers who can’t be bothered, many for no reason other that they are just plain lazy and can’t be bothered walking,.
Then we have courses built in unsuitable locations, suggesting that carts are the only way to play, yet go to Africa, India and many other places where the game has been played for centuries and you will find hot humid golf without carts. Why are these golfers not using carts, why are they walking, perhaps its just down to understand the game. They don’t agree with changing the game to make their life easy, they play the game. No challenge, no point in the game, why let a cart do the walking, why lets distance aids, markers, books or electronic gadgets do it all for you, where is the commitment, the challenge, ops sorry, walking from the car to the carts and back after the round, I suppose constitutes commitment these days.
Its not golf as it has been played for centuries. Carts, I believe have only been around since the early 1950’s approx 50 years, fine for those who medically need them.
I have no problem with Cart Golf or Cart Balling or whatever it is called. Just don’t call it golf.
Melvyn
-
Jay
I have no intention in taking sides but are your comments constructive?
I have, I expect more on GCA.com who certainly do not like me or should I say my Tone and have voiced it on screen, by IM or E-mail. Yet, I am also fortunate that many have to my surprise supported my stance some with the proviso that they would not put it as strongly as I do.
This is a Discussion Group where we all have a right to honest and sincere views and opinions, be they shared or not. We learn from others, even if we tend not to admit it at the time. Many in good faith put forward thoughts, ideas and views and those should be developed if others are interested, if not the topic quickly falls down the list.
Frustration can set in and quick reactions are not always wise, I know to my own cost, but the Discussion Group and all the individuals have a right to their views, even if we believe them to be wrong. Many will react to our response so we need to be careful (within reason) otherwise we find ourselves in ever decreasing circles leading to nowhere.
I cannot tell you what to do, that is totally down to you.
Melvyn
-
Paul C and Peter and Jim E, pls dont leave because of others opinions!
-
The problem is that some people take delight in character assassination for whatever petty reason, even if they have to spread a lie to do it. David is the common theme on every excreble thread on GCA.com these days, and worst of all, he likes that.
-
well something has to give Jay, at least IMHO, because i am getting so tired of people arguing back and forth, repeating there same position over and over and over, etc.................
good God, there's a lot of bigger things to worry about in the world
-
I think some places can get more players on the course and thus have more profit by not having walkers slow down the pace of play ie Sawgrass or Harbor Town. Two that can easily be walked.
Anthony
Perpetuating the myth that riders play faster than walkers is inexcusable.
-
I think some places can get more players on the course and thus have more profit by not having walkers slow down the pace of play ie Sawgrass or Harbor Town. Two that can easily be walked.
Anthony
Perpetuating the myth that riders play faster than walkers is inexcusable.
Agreed 100%. The pace is the same, the flow is quite different. It's aggravating when you are a walking group and the riding group behind you hits tee shots when you are clear, then race down to their tee balls and sit there looking put out by the "delay." After the round is over they give you the eyeball in the grill seeming to imply you held them up.
-
I think some places can get more players on the course and thus have more profit by not having walkers slow down the pace of play ie Sawgrass or Harbor Town. Two that can easily be walked.
Anthony
Perpetuating the myth that riders play faster than walkers is inexcusable.
Come on Adam. There are much better, factual arguments for walking vs. riding. Speed of play is not one of them. Unless you are positing that the individual who chooses to ride is inherently slower or a much poorer golfer than one who hoofs it, your suggestion can't hold water. In my nearly 40 years in the game playing probably close to 4,000 rounds all over the U.S., I have found ZERO evidence to support your position.
Jay,
You are out of line on this one. Dr. Moriarty makes a reasonable argument. Though I generally support Mr. Engh's position- that he would rather build a better course by utilizing superior site characteristics accessible primarily by carts rather than settling for a lesser course that 50% or fewer golfers would walk anyways- others may not agree for very good reasons. More like Mr. Keiser should put their money behind their mouth.
As to Peter, Paul, and MCirba (I could have gone Moriarty and said Mary, followed with modified lyrics of "Leaving On A Jet Plane" but I am not that witty), et. al. leaving the site because of inane arguments, that is a pity. To the extent this site is helpful and enjoyable, wouldn't it make more sense to just ignore objectionable subjects and/or people rather than try to thwart open dialogue? It would be great if we all could set our ego aside and write "thoughtfully", honestly, and clearly. Alas, this is not the nature of the beast.
-
Come on Adam. There are much better, factual arguments for walking vs. riding. Speed of play is not one of them. Unless you are positing that the individual who chooses to ride is inherently slower or a much poorer golfer than one who hoofs it, your suggestion can't hold water. In my nearly 40 years in the game playing probably close to 4,000 rounds all over the U.S., I have found ZERO evidence to support your position.
Well Lucky Lou,
The typical American that plays golf, rides in a cart, does not know proper etiquette, and, is not considerate of others, is WAY slower than a golfer walking.
You surely have been lucky if you have not seen this in action. It is the norm, whether you have seen it or not.
-
So, you are arguing that the rider is an inferior or uncaring golfer. Make him walk and see what happens. Do you think because he now walks he is a different golfer? I've played with many SLOW, uncaring walkers. I was even tasked at one of our unofficial GCA.com outings to pull one of these fellows aside and try to talk some sense into him (I am told that my efforts were for naught). I know that I can ride a whole lot faster than I can walk. I suspect that you know you can as well.
The slowest courses I've played, primarily in SoCal and OSU's Scarlet are/were primarily walking courses. Too bad we didn't play Great Southwest during your visit to TX a few years back. You, me, and a third walking without delay would likely have had to allow a riding fivesome or two playing $$$ wolf to play through.
-
I think some places can get more players on the course and thus have more profit by not having walkers slow down the pace of play ie Sawgrass or Harbor Town. Two that can easily be walked.
Anthony
Perpetuating the myth that riders play faster than walkers is inexcusable.
Come on Adam. There are much better, factual arguments for walking vs. riding. Speed of play is not one of them. Unless you are positing that the individual who chooses to ride is inherently slower or a much poorer golfer than one who hoofs it, your suggestion can't hold water. In my nearly 40 years in the game playing probably close to 4,000 rounds all over the U.S., I have found ZERO evidence to support your position.
Jay,
You are out of line on this one. Dr. Moriarty makes a reasonable argument. Though I generally support Mr. Engh's position- that he would rather build a better course by utilizing superior site characteristics accessible primarily by carts rather than settling for a lesser course that 50% or fewer golfers would walk anyways- others may not agree for very good reasons. More like Mr. Keiser should put their money behind their mouth.
As to Peter, Paul, and MCirba (I could have gone Moriarty and said Mary, followed with modified lyrics of "Leaving On A Jet Plane" but I am not that witty), et. al. leaving the site because of inane arguments, that is a pity. To the extent this site is helpful and enjoyable, wouldn't it make more sense to just ignore objectionable subjects and/or people rather than try to thwart open dialogue? It would be great if we all could set our ego aside and write "thoughtfully", honestly, and clearly. Alas, this is not the nature of the beast.
Lou
Hmmm, I would only agree with you if the course is near empty. With nobody in front, sure I can play faster in a cart, but what is the point unless its down to a crappy walking course? If the course is crowded, carts do absolutely no good to speed up play. How else does one explain 5 hour games where carts are prevalent? Is it all down to walkers?
BTW I agree with AG. I think Engh did have "moderate" in mind to mean that iffy terrain which most people probably wouldn't walk anyway so the archie may as well use all the best characteristics of the terrain which can be accessed via cart. This seems like a reasonable approach to me, but its easy for me to say because I am not the target market as I play very few cart courses. Indeed, I play so few that I think my tolerance for walking courses like Tobacco Road is very low even though it isn't a particularly hilly walk and nowhere near the sort of terrain I think Engh is referring to as "moderate".
Ciao
-
The real question should be "Do the chinese prefer to ride or walk" because the number of new courses built on good bad or indifferent terrain in the U.S. or the U.K., Sir Trump notwithstanding, in the next 5 years is going to be next to nil...
-
Lou, I would argue that the majority of people who play golf in America are not considerate of others. Since the numbers shake out to 85% ride, you do the math.
It does boil down to consideration of others. There's an art to playing golf in a timely manner. It's a pity not one of the associations who treat this sport as an industry make any attempt to teach that art.
-
I hate to see this wonderful, caring thread :P "degenerate" into a walkers vs riders OT tangent, but I think Adam and Lou are not that far apart.
If a golf course is empty and four good golfers play, the cart riders will go faster.
If there are 8 or 10 minute intervals on a course full of golfers, walkers and riders will play at the same pace - but the flow will be different as I mentioned above. Hurry up and wait for the riders, stroll for the walkers. I prefer the latter unless it's not feasible due to heat, humidity, distance or elevation changes.
-
I think there is no need to argue slowness between walkers and riders. Some people play slow! It is an attribute of the person, not of the method of conveyance.
Any quick walkers can make carters look and feel slow by quickly getting to their approach shots and stand over them looking perturbed while taking multiple practice swings while the carters ahead are putting out.
As has pointed out above carters can make walkers feel slow by dashing up to their drives and waiting on the walkers.
Anthony is an especially fast carter, because he doesn't bother to putt out. Playing with him is watching ADHD (aka ADD) in action. ;)
-
I agree with Adam that slow play is a problem for riders and walkers. The PGA tour needs to get serious about enforcement. If I have to watch Padraig Harrington go through his endless preshot routine one more time I may give up watching golf except on TIVO. How mony groups of high handicappers have you been stuck behind while everyone lines up their 2-footer for triple in turn? This goes back to the stroke play/match play thread as well...
-
I think there is no need to argue slowness between walkers and riders. Some people play slow! It is an attribute of the person, not of the method of conveyance.
Any quick walkers can make carters look and feel slow by quickly getting to their approach shots and stand over them looking perturbed while taking multiple practice swings while the carters ahead are putting out.
As has pointed out above carters can make walkers feel slow by dashing up to their drives and waiting on the walkers.
Anthony is an especially fast carter, because he doesn't bother to putt out. Playing with him is watching ADHD (aka ADD) in action. ;)
And he also gives very nice rulings too!!! ;D
P.S. Adam, I'd be curious to know where you got that 85% of golfers ride figure?
-
Returning to topic -
What is the "breaking point" in terms of land that makes "cart golf" a superior option?
Would most GCAs have looked at RCCC and seen a "cart golf" course?
Anthony - I have requested that people please do not consider "walking only" or RE developments for this question to keep it a little more pointed.
The choice is whether to make a course walkable so golfers have a choice to walk or not (and they will not be damned for either).
How severe does the site need to be to remove walking from the equation? Anyone have a good example?
-
...
What is the "breaking point" in terms of land that makes "cart golf" a superior option?
...
How severe does the site need to be to remove walking from the equation? Anyone have a good example?
Apparently at least some of the time flat.
The picture is from a flat site where Jim obviously pushed up all the contours often into quite unnatural land forms. The picture is between the black and blue teeing mounds with the white teeing mound peeking out on the right. The only purpose of having to walk over these mounds is to have an elevated view of the hole while teeing off from the appropriate mound.
(http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j282/bokuhan_hagaromo/ColumbiaPoint031.jpg)
-
Not sure about the speed of play difference. I noticed at the health club last night that they are pushing "10,000 steps a day" for better health. The chart they had showed about 80 steps per minute in a cart vs 90 steps per minute walking. They must have figured that on a cart path only course, where the number of steps is probably close to that of walking straight to your ball - either 60 yards out and back or 180-230 yards to the average drive. 120 steps vs 230. But, figure in walking 20 yards from cart to green and tee, etc. it might be close.
What I haven't seen in this discussion is the notion that I have run into - elevating greens and tees just a few feet can make it tough on many golfers. Some gca's set the front tee a minimum of 2 feet above grade, and step them up 2 feet, so the walk up to the back tee might be 8-10 feet - and that is a killer for many. Starting at grade, and reducing the steps a bit can reduce the vertical climb a lot.
But, at many courses, we are talking that little vertical climb affecting walking, making arguments over what Jim Engh had in mind about moderate sites kind of moot.
-
I agree that if people want to walk they should be allowed to. That makes perfect sense. I think some places can get more players on the course and thus have more profit by not having walkers slow down the pace of play ie Sawgrass or Harbor Town. Two that can easily be walked.
In my experience, whether or not walkers slow things up is largely a consequence of the design. On courses designed for walking I don't see walking slowing things up at all. And on the cartball courses I've played, it sure seems like the rounds took a heck of a lot longer than on walking courses.
As far as Castle Stuart. The target audience is the walking golfer. At Rustic Canyon the target audience is anyone who will pay. Two totally different cultures and golf IQ's of the typical person that plays these two courses. Same designer but different cultures.
I mistakenly wrote Castle "Stewart" above. Does that make me the first person ever to be outspelled by Anthony? I've also been informed that there are no carts or paths at Castle Stuart, given that it is fescue. I'm glad to hear it, and was obviously wrong above.
At Rustic Canyon we talked about why they did not put elevated tees up on the canyon. I think it would have been better for shot value and to take advantage of the view. I forget why it was not done. Do you remember?
I cant speak for the designers, but the land extends from the top of the canyon on each side, so presumably they could have gone up and down these steep banks if they wanted, but IMO to do so would have been completely contrary to what those three view as quality architecture! To name just a few things, it would have required excessive dirt moving, would have looked very unnatural, would have eliminated walking, would have necessitated ignoring much of the quirk and contour of the site, would have made the course just like most other new courses built in California, would have lessened the golfing experience by focusing on the spectacular at the expense of the interesting. In other words, it would have obliterated just about everything that makes the course special.
How would the alternative approach been better for shot value? Is "shot value" dependent upon elevated tees and scenic panoramas?
_____________________________________________________________________
David....if that is the debate here....then I can assure you that most GC Architects would always prefer designing a course that is walkable.....if the terrain allows for it
Paul, If this the case then apparently Mr. Engh is one of the few who disagrees. He has written that, even on moderate sites that where a walking golf is possible, he will gladly sacrifice walking if it means he can build more spectacular, inspiring, and powerful golf holes. To him it is a no brainer.
And that to me is fundamentally different approach toward moderate and difficult sites. The severity of the land is no longer a liability necessitating the use of a golf cart. It is an asset that should be sought out and exploited, regardless of the impact on walking. And to me that is a perspective worthy of consideration and conversation, isn't it?
I suspect many developers and a some designers view it similarly to Mr. Engh, but I hope you are correct about most always preferring to design a course that is walkable.
___________________________________________________
David,
I would respectfully disagree about what "most of the discussion has focused on" during this thread. This thread comes down to two things.
One is what Jim Engh meant by "moderate land" in the first post, and what should be done with it when building a golf course. I took that to mean land where walking would be, at best, challenging, and where few would choose to walk even if the course was constructed that way. Others, and I think you are in this camp, seemed to view the word "moderate" as land where walking would be more of a 50-50 proposition. Unfortunately, Mr. Engh has never returned to clear that up, and I can't really blame him.
A.G., Wasn't Mr. Engh fairly clear on this issue? I think he views it as a continuum, but his example involved land where 50% of golfers could walk. He reasoned that most of the 50% wouldn't walk - likely 90% would ride - and in these situations he would rather build a more spectacular/powerful/inspiring golf course even if it meant no walking would be reasonably possible:
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 thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.
Moreover, while I understand what you are suggesting, I wonder if you and others might be focusing on the wrong side of the equation. I suspect that the deciding factor is not how many people would or could walk, but rather whether or not the particular land allowed Mr. Engh to make golf holes that he considers more spectacular/inspiring/powerful. In other words, given what Mr. Engh has written,I don't think he would ever pass up a chance to make a spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf hole for the sake of preserving the walkability of a site. After all won't the vast majority of golfers ride anyway? If so, then why would he ever give up the chance to create spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf holes if the site allowed for them?
A few of us have tried to explore these issues above, but our posts have largely been ignored. I asked some questions in my long substantive post to Mr. Engh. RR has asked similar questions, and Michael Moore has asked a very specific fact based question above. In response Jay has tried to vilify us, but few have bothered to even consider our posts or questions.
I don't blame Mr. Engh for not becoming embroiled in this, but whether he is involved or not, it is surely worth discussing isn't it? Because as I said above to Paul it seems to be a shift in the paradigm.
The second theme, however, has been a steadfast refusal by two individuals to accept that, for a variety of reason, carts are part of the world of golf today, EVER! This includes such inanities as whether or not riding in a cart is even golf, whether or not there is ever any reason for a player to ride, whether or not a player should give up the game if they can't walk, and the demonization of ANY GCA that builds a course that is essentially unwalkable, or even difficult. This has been the unfortunate part of the thread, and I don't see it stopping.
I have steered clear of that conversation and want no part of it. But I won't censor myself because of the rancor that exists over these issues that don't concern me.
____________________________________________________________________________
So we've lost Peter Pallotta and Jim Engh all because of David M...that's a sad loss for the site.
Guys, just ignore him. One of these days, that kid will grow up.
The problem is that some people take delight in character assassination for whatever petty reason, even if they have to spread a lie to do it. David is the common theme on every excreble thread on GCA.com these days, and worst of all, he likes that.
What are these and your similar posts if not pathetic attempts at character assignation? Grow up Jay.
-
Bill,
Actually, Adam and I are quite a bit apart on this one. I am making the simple point that riding from point A to point B is much quicker than walking it. It follows that a slow rider who forgoes his cart will play even slower if it takes him longer to get to his ball, and perhaps a slow walker might play a bit faster if he hops on a cart and gets to his a bit quicker. It goes without saying that without effective marshalling, the speed of play is dictated by the slowest players, regardless whether they're riding or hoofing it.
Again, citing Great Southwest GC where I was a member for over 20 years, the morning weekend shift is mandatory riding and most every tee time (8 minutes apart, when I was there last) is used. Typical speed of play is 4 hours or less. The afternoon tee times when walking is allowed and which are less in demand often yield 4.5+ hour rounds.
As a walker I HATE to recognize this truth which I don't think is unique to this golf course. I don't know that golfers are less considerate or educated today. It may be a reflection of society as a whole. We seem hell-bent on forcing our narrow preferences on everyone else- I hated it when riders did that to me and I would be a hypocrite if I would react in kind.
Regarding the specific topic of this thread, to the extent that the client and the customer value more compelling architecture as they define it- not David Moriarty, me, or you- and the comfort, convenience, or just the access of riding a cart, the "thoughtful" architect would be nuts to do otherwise. We may be happy with a walkable course with 8-10 very good holes, a few decent ones, and the rest "connectors". Some prefer 18 signature holes with carts connecting the routing together. I am not sure that this is a sustainable business model, but I have been known to be wrong on occasion.
-
Jeff B,
If I can get our old friend Perzan on a diet bet, are you game? I am going to pull the trigger (on a plan) any year now.
For me, weight reduction, physical fitness, and the beneficial effects on my game are the most compelling reasons for walking. And for the record, if given a free membership at Brook Hollow or Colonial, both very walkable golf courses, versus Dallas National, a much superior course in my estimation but a very hard walk, I'd choose the former.
-
"At Rustic Canyon we talked about why they did not put elevated tees up on the canyon. I think it would have been better for shot value and to take advantage of the view. I forget why it was not done. Do you remember?"
Anthony, the word is restraint. One of the great things about Rustic Canyon is that when you walk up to that 16th tee and look out over the entire course, all of the holes you've spent the past couple of hours playing, you realize how gradually you've been moving up-canyon. You have earned that view, not had it spoon-fed to you. For some, there is a world of difference between that and just running cart paths up and down the hillside to "capitalize on the views." Don't know if you've ever seen Rees Jones's Lake of Isles at Foxwoods Casino in CT, but that's the deal there--build a platform tee, drive it down into a valley, then buzz the cart back uphill to the top of the next ridge. Repeat.
Great views don't mean much if the golfer is denied the pleasure of the journey to discover them.
-
Lou. Bill is right. Its a semantical difference between those who are avid golfers and those who I'm referencing. Let's let this hijack end?.
-
"At Rustic Canyon we talked about why they did not put elevated tees up on the canyon. I think it would have been better for shot value and to take advantage of the view. I forget why it was not done. Do you remember?"
Anthony, the word is restraint. One of the great things about Rustic Canyon is that when you walk up to that 16th tee and look out over the entire course, all of the holes you've spent the past couple of hours playing, you realize how gradually you've been moving up-canyon. You have earned that view, not had it spoon-fed to you. For some, there is a world of difference between that and just running cart paths up and down the hillside to "capitalize on the views."
Great views don't mean much if the golfer is denied the pleasure of the journey to discover them.
Thats what I'm talkin bout. This is one of the best posts this year.
Ciao
-
I've played with Jay Flemma, and each time we have walked. As a matter of fact, I asked him if he wanted to take a cart each time, as I had no aversion to "cart golf", but he wanted to walk, so I did too!
-
What do guys have to say about the elevator you take to get from #9 to #10 at George Thomas’ Bel-Air or the tram you ride up with clubs in tow on #17 at Colt & Alison’s Kirtland CC or for that matter a similar tram at Flynn’s design at Manufacturers? What were these architects thinking ;) Maybe those transport methods seemed pretty cool to them and it provided an interesting journey!
I love to walk, espcially with a caddy, and would despise taking a cart on many courses I play. However, thank goodness there is variety in golf. If it weren't for carts, one of my favorite courses by Coore & Crenshaw - The Plantation Course in Maui, would never have been built!
-
What do guys have to say about the elevator you take to get from #9 to #10 at George Thomas’ Bel-Air or the tram you ride up with clubs in tow on #17 at Colt & Alison’s Kirtland CC or for that matter a similar tram at Flynn’s design at Manufacturers? What were these architects thinking ;) Maybe those transport methods seemed pretty cool to them and it provided an interesting journey!
Maybe. But as Jim Engh notes, it is a continuum. And I'd place all those things very close to the walking side of things, as they all allow the golfer to walk except for a single transition. Same for the ferry service at Bandon Dunes (which didn't yet exist when I was there.)
I love to walk, espcially with a caddy, and would despise taking a cart on many courses I play. However, thank goodness there is variety in golf. If it weren't for carts, one of my favorite courses by Coore & Crenshaw - The Plantation Course in Maui, would never have been built!
I find Plantation to be an interesting example and have thought of it quite a few times during these conversations. For one thing, it is a good example of how one bad transition can kill an entire course with regard to walking. For another, one of the reason it works, I think, is that much of it feels like it was designed for walking, whether one takes carts or not. But one thing I've noticed is that even after playing it around 10 times I still don't feel like a have a real connection to the course and I definitely don't feel like I understand the terrain as well as I should. I assume this is because I am zooming by much of it in a cart. I think I'd appreciate it more if there was a reasonable way to walk it, and think that as good as it may be, it'd be a lot better if they'd figure out a way to make it reasonably walkable.
For one thing it is a very good example of how one very long walk can kill the possibility of walking for the entire course.
-
One of the great things about Rustic Canyon is that when you walk up to that 16th tee and look out over the entire course, all of the holes you've spent the past couple of hours playing, you realize how gradually you've been moving up-canyon. You have earned that view, not had it spoon-fed to you.
I suppose that depends on whether or not you're in a cart.
One of the common complaints I've heard from a number of different people after 15 is "I hate this climb".
-
___________________________________________________
David,
I would respectfully disagree about what "most of the discussion has focused on" during this thread. This thread comes down to two things.
One is what Jim Engh meant by "moderate land" in the first post, and what should be done with it when building a golf course. I took that to mean land where walking would be, at best, challenging, and where few would choose to walk even if the course was constructed that way. Others, and I think you are in this camp, seemed to view the word "moderate" as land where walking would be more of a 50-50 proposition. Unfortunately, Mr. Engh has never returned to clear that up, and I can't really blame him.
A.G., Wasn't Mr. Engh fairly clear on this issue? I think he views it as a continuum, but his example involved land where 50% of golfers could walk. He reasoned that most of the 50% wouldn't walk - likely 90% would ride - and in these situations he would rather build a more spectacular/powerful/inspiring golf course even if it meant no walking would be reasonably possible:
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 thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.
Moreover, while I understand what you are suggesting, I wonder if you and others might be focusing on the wrong side of the equation. I suspect that the deciding factor is not how many people would or could walk, but rather whether or not the particular land allowed Mr. Engh to make golf holes that he considers more spectacular/inspiring/powerful. In other words, given what Mr. Engh has written,I don't think he would ever pass up a chance to make a spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf hole for the sake of preserving the walkability of a site. After all won't the vast majority of golfers ride anyway? If so, then why would he ever give up the chance to create spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf holes if the site allowed for them?
A few of us have tried to explore these issues above, but our posts have largely been ignored. I asked some questions in my long substantive post to Mr. Engh. RR has asked similar questions, and Michael Moore has asked a very specific fact based question above. In response Jay has tried to vilify us, but few have bothered to even consider our posts or questions.
I don't blame Mr. Engh for not becoming embroiled in this, but whether he is involved or not, it is surely worth discussing isn't it? Because as I said above to Paul it seems to be a shift in the paradigm.
____________________________________________________________________________
David,
I think what has consistently been ignored here, save one or two posts, is that Jim Engh doesn't build golf courses as monuments to the game of golf, or to the activity of walking while playing golf. Whether we like it or not, he builds golf courses for a person who employs him and pays him, and the courses he builds are a product of what his employer wants built. Employers want courses with holes that are "spectacular/inspiring/powerful"; it is Engh's JOB to build those.
Can you imagine a scenario in which a GCA tells the potential employer that he as the GCA will be sacrificing spectacular/inspiring/powerful for walkability? I don't think he gets that job...
If Mr. Engh builds courses that are highly walkable but commercially less successful than courses that are visually spectacular, he will not continue to be employed, I would suspect. We have talked here as if he, or any GCA, builds exactly the course that they wish to build, but common sense tells us that isn't the case. I would be curious to know if at least some developers want or instruct their GCA to build the course to be only marginally walkable or not walkable at all in order to force cart revenues. It's hard to blame Engh or anybody else in the profession for building a product that their employer mandates; we all do it at our work every day!
The fact is that the vast majority of golfers don't want to walk, and will NOT walk even if the course is built for walking, and I don't think that is especially arguable. Whether the % of walkers is 1%, 10%, 20% or some other %, it is by far the minority. I was considered an oddity at my former club for walking regardless of heat, etc. on a course that was a very easy walk, and I am well on my way to being considered the same way at my new club, which is a much tougher walk. My guess is that far less than 10% walk at the former, and it looks more like 1% at the latter. Both are far, far more moderate land than Jim Engh specializes in, BTW.
We here on GCA.com are oddities in many ways, walking not the least of them. Most golfers don't give a rat's heinie about the architect or architecture of the golf course, and they have no intention of walking to find out. That's just the way it is, and you and I would be completely nuts to expect Jim Engh to build courses with golfers like you and me foremost in his mind.
-
David,
I think what has consistently been ignored here, save one or two posts, is that Jim Engh doesn't build golf courses as monuments to the game of golf, or to the activity of walking while playing golf. Whether we like it or not, he builds golf courses for a person who employs him and pays him, and the courses he builds are a product of what his employer wants built. Employers want courses with holes that are "spectacular/inspiring/powerful"; it is Engh's JOB to build those.
Can you imagine a scenario in which a GCA tells the potential employer that he as the GCA will be sacrificing spectacular/inspiring/powerful for walkability? I don't think he gets that job...
If Mr. Engh builds courses that are highly walkable but commercially less successful than courses that are visually spectacular, he will not continue to be employed, I would suspect. We have talked here as if he, or any GCA, builds exactly the course that they wish to build, but common sense tells us that isn't the case. I would be curious to know if at least some developers want or instruct their GCA to build the course to be only marginally walkable or not walkable at all in order to force cart revenues. It's hard to blame Engh or anybody else in the profession for building a product that their employer mandates; we all do it at our work every day!
The fact is that the vast majority of golfers don't want to walk, and will NOT walk even if the course is built for walking, and I don't think that is especially arguable. Whether the % of walkers is 1%, 10%, 20% or some other %, it is by far the minority. I was considered an oddity at my former club for walking regardless of heat, etc. on a course that was a very easy walk, and I am well on my way to being considered the same way at my new club, which is a much tougher walk. My guess is that far less than 10% walk at the former, and it looks more like 1% at the latter. Both are far, far more moderate land than Jim Engh specializes in, BTW.
We here on GCA.com are oddities in many ways, walking not the least of them. Most golfers don't give a rat's heinie about the architect or architecture of the golf course, and they have no intention of walking to find out. That's just the way it is, and you and I would be completely nuts to expect Jim Engh to build courses with golfers like you and me foremost in his mind.
A.G, I appreciate you responding and keeping it above belt. I understand what you are saying. Mr. Engh said something similar in the first post with reference to sites that were unwalkable, but I think it may apply to moderately walkable sites as well. He has clients that want spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf holes on sometimes difficult sites and he gives them what they want. I don't blame him for it nor do I expect him to do differently. Mr. Engh has been quite successful providing these clients with spectacular/inspiring/powerful and that speaks for itself. That being said, there are a couple of things that I am not sure you are considering.
1. Mr. Engh is not an employee, he is an independent professional who has at least some say over the direction of his career, the kind of jobs he goes after, and the kind of developer he will work for. So it is not entirely accurate to say he is completely beholden to the client's wishes. Mr. Engh doesn't have to go after the jobs where he disagrees with the developer's vision.
In this regard, it may also be worth considering that some designers have shaped their careers in a direction that allows them to at least try and build walkable courses. And some of these designers have worked on some sites that would very likely have been considered cartball courses by the vast majority of designers and developers. So their must be at least some developers out there who are open to walking courses on tough sites, or these designers must be pretty convincing.
This may sound like an indictment of Jim Engh, but I don't mean it to be. Mr. Engh has shaped his career and been very successful. I would be very surprised if he thinks his artistic vision has been severely compromised by his clients. At least I hope he wouldn't think so. My point is that he has had quite a bit of control over the direction his career has taken, I he is probably quite proud of that. Wouldn't you be? So I am not willing to accept that it is all just a matter of what his clients want.
2. What is good for Mr. Engh's business is not necessarily good for golf, what his clients want will not necessarily produce the best courses. I don't think we should analyze golf courses based on whether the designer does what the client wants. Many developers wouldn't know a good golf course if NGLA fell out of the sky and hit them on the head. Do we really want to base our standards on what they want? I mean no disrespect to Jim Engh here, because what his good for his business is really none of my business. For example, it makes no difference to me whether the waterfalls at Black Rock were his idea or his client's idea or both. I don't like them either way.
So while I agree that it is important to consider what the market demands, it is also important to realize that markets are fickle and what the market demands does not always turn out to be what is best for even the market in the long run.
3. Unlike the designers, we have the luxury of looking at these golf courses without having to ask ourselves "did it put food on my table?" or "did it help me get my next job?" And in my opinion that is the proper perspective from which to consider these things. We don't have to worry about the short term business concerns or the bottom line and can focus on where a course fits in the medium as a whole-- past, present, and future. How do these courses impact the golfer's expectations? Will these courses be considered great in 100 years or even 10 years? Does it make long term sense for the industry to be focusing on such courses? What is the cost to the traditional golf experience when we do away with walking? Do they help or hurt golf's image? Do they attract avid golfers who will continue to play them year after year? Etc. Do they sacrifice the interesting at the alter of the spectacular? These issues and many more are independent of what is good for Mr. Engh's business.
I hope that clarifies where I am coming from on these issues. I don't expect Mr. Engh to build golf courses for me, and I don't think he expects me to like courses he builds for his clients. In fact I doubt he gives any thought to what I think at all, nor do I think he necessarily should. He is a very successful designer and should do what he thinks is best for his career, whether we here like it or not. And we'll write what we think, whether he would agree with us or not. It is nothing personal against (or for) Mr. Engh. It is about the golf courses.
-
David,
While I agree that any GCA has some control over the direction his career takes, once he takes a job he is hardly "independent." Every one of us has some control over the direction of our career, but once we sign a contract and take a job, our employer determines what direction we take. GCA's are no different.
I wholeheartedly agree that not only are markets fickle, but that markets often do not make good long-term decisions. One has only to look at General Motors to see this in action, and GCA is not necessarily any different. However, just like a GM employee or manager can't unilaterally change what the company produces, neither can a GCA who has been employed by a developer to build a particular type of course. There is no reason to believe that developers have either the best interests of golf (whatever that might mean!) at heart, nor that they are particularly knowledgeable about GCA (whatever THAT might mean!), but it is their nickel and that's the way things work. Unless Engh wants to be a starving Don Quixote, he'll build what his boss wants, and what his boss will want is a golf course that appeals to the vast majority of the customer base of the golfing public. You and I are decidedly NOT in that majority; we play much, much more golf and have very particular interests and concerns that the market simply cannot cater to.
You are right also that we have the luxury of not worrying about the economics of the golf business, but instead can obsess about the aesthetics of the sport of golf. These are very different, and we should absolve Mr. Engh and other GCA's from what WE see as undesirable because they DO have to worry about putting food on the table. That is a pretty big issue, IMO.
Finally, this still all comes down to the word "moderate". Engh said clearly that TO HIM this means land that only 50% CAN walk, and that only 10% WILL walk. That seems pretty clear cut, and economically that is a no-brainer.
-
David,
While I agree that any GCA has some control over the direction his career takes, once he takes a job he is hardly "independent." Every one of us has some control over the direction of our career, but once we sign a contract and take a job, our employer determines what direction we take. GCA's are no different.
A.G.,
I agree that once a GCA signs up the developer has quite a lot of say, but surely before he signs up the site has already been chosen and he knows where the developer is coming from. I believe that usually the GCA will have seen the site (or could have,) maybe come up with some preliminary idea or even a complete routing, bid the project, discussed the details with the developer, and essentially auditioned for the job. So if the designer ends up getting the job, I think we can safely assume that he is right where he wants to be, and is working on a project he wants to be working on, and has come to some sort of understand (sometimes a detailed understanding) of what the designer/builder will produce. I am not saying that developers cannot muck things up, but it is not as if the developer is like a defense attorney who has put his name in a hat in the public defender pool at the local courthouse and he must take what he gets no matter who the client. He chooses his clients and much as the developer chooses the designer.
Honestly, I this I find this entire line of discussion to be sort of strange, as if Jim Engh (and others) have had to severely compromise their professional ideals and goals to get these jobs. (I also found it strange that Mr. Engh refers to sites he has been "given" as if he had no say in the matter.) Normally the so-called Nuremberg Defense ("I was just following orders") comes up when the result is obviously compromised, wrong, or bad, and the underlings claim "don't blame me, I was just doing my job." In other words, it really only makes sense when someone is trying to distance themselves for the decisions that led to a bad result. But here you seem to be taking it to the next level, arguing that we ought not to criticize the final result because the designer was just doing his job. Isn't the final product good or bad for a golf perspective regardless of whose decision it was to create it? And if we have to have to "absolve" designers from responsibility for their work, isn't this an implicit admission that something must be seriously wrong with the final product?
Think of your GM example. Let's assume that I am very interested in automobile design (past present and future) and I sincerely believe that GM had been heading in the wrong direction for the past decade or so, and that the company and had been focusing on the wrong types of cars, and that they used too much gas, and that the fit and finish was not up to the quality standards of other manufacturers, and that they were not fun to drive, and that they cost more to maintain, and that their business model was not sustainable given the inevitable changes in the world and the industry. In short, what if I sincerely believed that whether or not GM could sell Suburbans to yuppies, their cars were crap.
- Would you tell me that I shouldn't say those things because the employees and middle-management at GM had families to feed and that criticizing the final product was really an unfair criticism of those that were just following orders?
- Would you tell me that as long as those creating the cars were following orders, then we must not criticize the final product?
- Or would you agree that it is possible to evaluate the final product, approach, and philosophy of the company without it being a personal affront to the employees or managers?
You are right also that we have the luxury of not worrying about the economics of the golf business, but instead can obsess about the aesthetics of the sport of golf. These are very different, and we should absolve Mr. Engh and other GCA's from what WE see as undesirable because they DO have to worry about putting food on the table. That is a pretty big issue, IMO.
Mr. Engh doesn't need my absolution and far be it from me to offer absolution or condemnation. I don't blame him for doing what he does. My concern is with the golf courses and with golf generally. You can downplay that by claiming I "obsess about the aesthetics of the sport of golf," but I think there is more to it than that.
Finally, this still all comes down to the word "moderate". Engh said clearly that TO HIM this means land that only 50% CAN walk, and that only 10% WILL walk. That seems pretty clear cut, and economically that is a no-brainer.
Again, A.G., I suspect that this is NOT the real issue. As I wrote above, I think the real issue is whether or not the particular land allowed Mr. Engh to make golf holes that he considers more spectacular/inspiring/powerful. In other words, given what Mr. Engh has written, I don't think he would pass up a chance to make a spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf hole for the sake of preserving the walkability of a site, no matter how many people could possible walk. After all won't the vast majority of golfers ride anyway? If so, then why would he ever give up the chance to create spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf holes if the site allowed for them? Why would he ever compromise his vision for the sake of a small percentage of walkers?
I've tried to explore these issues above, as have a few others, but our posts have largely been ignored. I asked some questions in my long post to Mr. Engh. RR has asked similar questions, and Michael Moore has asked a very specific fact based question regarding one of his courses on supposedly walkable site. No one has bothered to even consider our posts or questions.
Do you really think that Mr. Engh would pass up the opportunity to be build a powerful, spectacular, inspiring golf hole for the sake of preserving walking for the few who might? Doesn't this cut against what you said above,when you noted that you and I cannot reasonably expect Mr. Engh to design his courses for we few outliers?
And, A.G., I appreciate you taking the time to consider my posts and thoughtfully respond, A.G. I know your perspective is shared by many (probably most) and is worth considering. I also know I am in the minority here, and am fighting an uphill battle, but I think my take might be worth considering as well.
- David.
-
A.G._Crockett writes:
Unless Engh wants to be a starving Don Quixote, he'll build what his boss wants, and what his boss will want is a golf course that appeals to the vast majority of the customer base of the golfing public. You and I are decidedly NOT in that majority; we play much, much more golf and have very particular interests and concerns that the market simply cannot cater to.
Amen. If Engh wants to build virtual golf courses and there are clients who want to hire him, more power to him. So go ahead and appeal to the lowest common denominator if it puts food on the table. The world needs Jessica Simpsons so we can better understand the talent of Nina Simones.
You are right also that we have the luxury of not worrying about the economics of the golf business, but instead can obsess about the aesthetics of the sport of golf. These are very different, and we should absolve Mr. Engh and other GCA's from what WE see as undesirable because they DO have to worry about putting food on the table. That is a pretty big issue, IMO.
No. We don't have to show understanding. He's making good money, building courses developers want.He's making good money building these courses, so there is no reason we need to be forced to recognize his talent. He can't have it all. If he wants courses to last he is going to have to get away from the lowest common denominators. J. Simpson made a lot more money in her career than N. Simone, but Simone will still be listened to 100 years from now. I don't have to consider at all that Simpson wants to sell a ton of records. I get to choose what music and what courses I like best without worrying about their interest in putting food on their table.
Cartball courses require no skill in routing. Just build cart paths to get you from hole to hole. They can not stand up against a beautifully routed golf course. Do you really think I should ignore walkability and routing just because Engh needs to feed his family?
Cheers,
Dan King
Something very drastic ought to have been done years and years ago. Golf courses are becoming far to long. Twenty years ago we played three rounds of golf a day and considered we had taken an interminably long time if we took more than two hours to play a round. Today it's not infrequently takes over three hours.
--Alister MacKenzie
-
Jessica Simpson sings?
-
dan, I'd say Billie Holiday rather than Nina Simone. This sounds like a new thread...relating courses to music......
-
A.G._Crockett writes:
Unless Engh wants to be a starving Don Quixote, he'll build what his boss wants, and what his boss will want is a golf course that appeals to the vast majority of the customer base of the golfing public. You and I are decidedly NOT in that majority; we play much, much more golf and have very particular interests and concerns that the market simply cannot cater to.
Amen. If Engh wants to build virtual golf courses and there are clients who want to hire him, more power to him. So go ahead and appeal to the lowest common denominator if it puts food on the table. The world needs Jessica Simpsons so we can better understand the talent of Nina Simones.
You are right also that we have the luxury of not worrying about the economics of the golf business, but instead can obsess about the aesthetics of the sport of golf. These are very different, and we should absolve Mr. Engh and other GCA's from what WE see as undesirable because they DO have to worry about putting food on the table. That is a pretty big issue, IMO.
No. We don't have to show understanding. He's making good money, building courses developers want.He's making good money building these courses, so there is no reason we need to be forced to recognize his talent. He can't have it all. If he wants courses to last he is going to have to get away from the lowest common denominators. J. Simpson made a lot more money in her career than N. Simone, but Simone will still be listened to 100 years from now. I don't have to consider at all that Simpson wants to sell a ton of records. I get to choose what music and what courses I like best without worrying about their interest in putting food on their table.
Cartball courses require no skill in routing. Just build cart paths to get you from hole to hole. They can not stand up against a beautifully routed golf course. Do you really think I should ignore walkability and routing just because Engh needs to feed his family?
Cheers,
Dan King
Something very drastic ought to have been done years and years ago. Golf courses are becoming far to long. Twenty years ago we played three rounds of golf a day and considered we had taken an interminably long time if we took more than two hours to play a round. Today it's not infrequently takes over three hours.
--Alister MacKenzie
Dan,
I'm trying not to be dogmatic here; help me out. Like you, I would rather walk than ride. Like you, I would prefer a golf course on terrain conducive to walking. Like you, I would prefer that GCA's built ALL golf courses to make walking not only possible, but pleasant.
But you and I both know that there are many sites that just aren't that way. My problem is that I have this crazy idea that my world gets a little better when more golf courses are built, and I realize that some will not be exactly what I want them to be, for a great variety of reasons.
I won't try to decide what constitutes the "lowest common denominator" for golf courses, and I kind of like the Simpson-Simone analogy. I don't think, though, that any course that COULD be built to be marginally walkable (the type of course we are talking about here) automatically meets that standard just because it is built in a different way.
"Cartball courses require no skill in routing." is the statement that I have the most trouble with, though. I see no reason why this should be true, but I'll concede the point for a moment. However, I think you'd have to admit that it would be at least possible to display great skill in routing only while building a mediocre golf course in order to avoid potentially better holes that would require long rides. I have played some brilliant designs in the mountains that weren't walkable, and I marveled at how the GCA could "see" the holes before he built them; I rarely get that sense on flatter, easier terrain. In reality, it seems to me that routing on marginal terrain is MUCH tougher, not less.
This is a hell of a position for me to be in. I'm defending golf carts, which I hate, and riding-only courses, which I detest. But I understand riding-only courses like Engh was talking about, and I can still admire the skill and artistry of the people that design those courses. I really don't see what is so difficult or wrong about that, and I'll NEVER see how more courses in more places in and of itself is a bad thing for me or the game of golf.
-
I really don't see what is so difficult or wrong about that, and I'll NEVER see how more courses in more places in and of itself is a bad thing for me or the game of golf.
But there could be courses on these sites, walkable courses where golfers could choose to walk or ride! Wouldn't that be better for you and the game of golf?
______________________________
Jessica Simpson sings?
To paraphrase Melvyn, whatever she is doing it shouldn't be called "singing."
-
I really don't see what is so difficult or wrong about that, and I'll NEVER see how more courses in more places in and of itself is a bad thing for me or the game of golf.
But there could be courses on these sites, walkable courses where golfers could choose to walk or ride! Wouldn't that be better for you and the game of golf?
David,
Are you saying that there are no golfers (cart golfers according to Melvin) that you would rather not play Rustic Canyon with on a Saturday morning? They are going to take a cart on Rustic or Lost Canyons, so why not have them go to Lost Canyons to clear a path for the real golfers at Rustic?
-
I really don't see what is so difficult or wrong about that, and I'll NEVER see how more courses in more places in and of itself is a bad thing for me or the game of golf.
But there could be courses on these sites, walkable courses where golfers could choose to walk or ride! Wouldn't that be better for you and the game of golf?
______________________________
Of course, and there are many such courses. It isn't either/or; there are a lot of permutations out there.
By the way, there is an interesting article in GolfWorld this week about the routing that the Presidents Cup will use at Harding Park. It may have already been discussed here, but it isn't the normal routing; it was changed to make the best possible match play course. The downside is that there will be two long walks between holes now.
So it seems that even on a course such as Harding Park, it is possible that the very best golf course might not be as completely walker-friendly, no? And Harding Park is pretty benign terrain, certainly compared to the sites that Jim Engh typically works on or was referring to in the original post. So it MAY be possible that his original point has received some support, however unintentionally, from Willie Park.
And who are we to argue with Willie Park? ;)
-
A.G._Crockett writes:
But you and I both know that there are many sites that just aren't that way. My problem is that I have this crazy idea that my world gets a little better when more golf courses are built, and I realize that some will not be exactly what I want them to be, for a great variety of reasons.
I don't see any reason courses should be built on sites that don't work for golf courses. I understand others wanting this, but it has nothing to do with golf for me. I have no reason to root for golf remaining popular. I'm not involved in the golf business, and see golf being popular as much of the ruin of the game. In my mind it was a much more fun game when all golfers essentially knew each other, before they tried to popularize the game.
"Cartball courses require no skill in routing." is the statement that I have the most trouble with, though. I see no reason why this should be true, but I'll concede the point for a moment. However, I think you'd have to admit that it would be at least possible to display great skill in routing only while building a mediocre golf course in order to avoid potentially better holes that would require long rides. I have played some brilliant designs in the mountains that weren't walkable, and I marveled at how the GCA could "see" the holes before he built them; I rarely get that sense on flatter, easier terrain. In reality, it seems to me that routing on marginal terrain is MUCH tougher, not less.
Come on, given big enough of a property, I can go and find 18 great tee sites and 18 great green sites. If I could do it, there is very little chance it really requires any special skill.
I never liked the idea of 18 signature holes. I believe it is often the quality of the between holes that make a course great. Again, getting back to music, I want my golf course to work like a great classical piece, where there are (I'm drawing a blank on what it is called) very intense movements and then more relaxed movements. Signature golf is much more about rock 'n' roll than classical. You just beat the listener/golfer over the head with music/ golf experience. While I am a rocker at times, I don't think much rock 'n' roll will be remembered for hundreds of years. The ones remembered will will not necessarily be the Ramones. The Ramones were fun, but ain't nobody comparing them to Mozart.
This is a hell of a position for me to be in. I'm defending golf carts, which I hate, and riding-only courses, which I detest. But I understand riding-only courses like Engh was talking about, and I can still admire the skill and artistry of the people that design those courses. I really don't see what is so difficult or wrong about that, and I'll NEVER see how more courses in more places in and of itself is a bad thing for me or the game of golf.
It is comparing Jessica Simpson to Nina Simone (I love Holiday, but I thought Simone was a better example because she always refused to compromise for a bigger payday.) I can admire Simpson's rendition of These Boots are Made for Walking but that doesn't mean I gotta compare it to truly talented artists. Just like the best bubblegum in the world doesn't compare to a 3 star meal, neither does the great cartball course compare to real golf, routed to make the entire course work together.
Again, I have no problem with the existence of cartball -- though I think we would be better off without it -- but nobody is letting me make those decisions. I get to decide what I like and what I dislike, and I dislike cartball. I say let them keep trying to make great cartball courses, just like Simpson can continue to try and sing and Bazooka can try to make great bubblegum. But I'm not going to compare them to real artists.
Cheers,
Dan King
If some hole does not possess striking individuality through some gift of nature, it must be given as much as possible artificially, and the artifice must be introduced in so subtle a manner as to make it seem natural.
--A.W. Tillinghast
(Or you can just pour concrete over it.)
-
I really don't see what is so difficult or wrong about that, and I'll NEVER see how more courses in more places in and of itself is a bad thing for me or the game of golf.
But there could be courses on these sites, walkable courses where golfers could choose to walk or ride! Wouldn't that be better for you and the game of golf?
______________________________
Of course, and there are many such courses. It isn't either/or; there are a lot of permutations out there.
By the way, there is an interesting article in GolfWorld this week about the routing that the Presidents Cup will use at Harding Park. It may have already been discussed here, but it isn't the normal routing; it was changed to make the best possible match play course. The downside is that there will be two long walks between holes now.
So it seems that even on a course such as Harding Park, it is possible that the very best golf course might not be as completely walker-friendly, no? And Harding Park is pretty benign terrain, certainly compared to the sites that Jim Engh typically works on or was referring to in the original post. So it MAY be possible that his original point has received some support, however unintentionally, from Willie Park.
And who are we to argue with Willie Park? ;)
There was nothing wrong with the original routing of Harding Park, and no walk of over 30 yards to the next tee. That rerouting IMHO is a bunch of crap.
-
A.G._Crockett writes:
So it seems that even on a course such as Harding Park, it is possible that the very best golf course might not be as completely walker-friendly, no? And Harding Park is pretty benign terrain, certainly compared to the sites that Jim Engh typically works on or was referring to in the original post. So it MAY be possible that his original point has received some support, however unintentionally, from Willie Park.
And who are we to argue with Willie Park?
I'm clearly missing your point here. Harding Park has been and will continue to be a well routing course that is easy to walk. The PGA Tour, in the infinite lack of wisdom screw-up the course, and somehow Park is to blame. I'm missing how Park has anything to do with the PGA Tour's screw-up.
Cheers,
Dan King
It's sort of the U.S. team playing the team that lives in the U.S.
--Hale Irwin, U.S. captain (on why he doesn't expect the fervor that marked recent Ryder Cups at the Presidents Cup)
-
The only negative aspect of Harding Park's real routing is the similar #2 and #7 that run side by side in the same direction. The changes caused by the PGA Tour's statistical analyses (matches last 15 or 16 holes on average) and corporate tents will hopefully be a distant memory in a couple of weeks.
-
I really don't see what is so difficult or wrong about that, and I'll NEVER see how more courses in more places in and of itself is a bad thing for me or the game of golf.
But there could be courses on these sites, walkable courses where golfers could choose to walk or ride! Wouldn't that be better for you and the game of golf?
David,
Are you saying that there are no golfers (cart golfers according to Melvin) that you would rather not play Rustic Canyon with on a Saturday morning? They are going to take a cart on Rustic or Lost Canyons, so why not have them go to Lost Canyons to clear a path for the real golfers at Rustic?
Mike, I am a big fan of the double negative and wouldn't not consider its proper use a bit of artform, but even I am not not unsure of what you didn't not mean in that first sentence.
Generally I'd prefer to play with walkers, but it really depends on who it is. I'd gladly play with some of those around here who sometimes find it necessary to take a cart, so long as they managed to keep the carts where they belong.
Last weekend we got paired up with a father and son (probably high school) both apparently in good physical condition, riding in a cart. I finally asked them why they decided to take a cart and they explained that they hadn't really even thought about it. They had been playing nearby cartball courses on the weekends and had apparently become used to it, so walking was no longer even a consideration. Unfortunately more and more golfers take that seat in a cart at one of these cartball courses and the inertia just keeps them there, and in the long run golf becomes less interesting as a result.
So yes, it'd be nice if they stayed at Moorpark CC or Tierrable Rejada or Lost Canyons and left Rustic Canyon to us, but it would be even nicer if all four were excellent walking courses instead of just the one.
____________________________________________________________
A.G. As I tried to explain in other threads, I think that the quality of the golf and course necessarily suffers when walking is eliminated. I don't think that a few spectacular tees can make up for that.
As for Harding Park, I don't look to the PGA to tell me what is a good routing.
-
I really don't see what is so difficult or wrong about that, and I'll NEVER see how more courses in more places in and of itself is a bad thing for me or the game of golf.
But there could be courses on these sites, walkable courses where golfers could choose to walk or ride! Wouldn't that be better for you and the game of golf?
______________________________
Of course, and there are many such courses. It isn't either/or; there are a lot of permutations out there.
By the way, there is an interesting article in GolfWorld this week about the routing that the Presidents Cup will use at Harding Park. It may have already been discussed here, but it isn't the normal routing; it was changed to make the best possible match play course. The downside is that there will be two long walks between holes now.
So it seems that even on a course such as Harding Park, it is possible that the very best golf course might not be as completely walker-friendly, no? And Harding Park is pretty benign terrain, certainly compared to the sites that Jim Engh typically works on or was referring to in the original post. So it MAY be possible that his original point has received some support, however unintentionally, from Willie Park.
And who are we to argue with Willie Park? ;)
Sorry; Willie Watson. It was late, I was tired. :-[
-
Come on, given big enough of a property, I can go and find 18 great tee sites and 18 great green sites. If I could do it, there is very little chance it really requires any special skill.
Cheers,
Dan King
If some hole does not possess striking individuality through some gift of nature, it must be given as much as possible artificially, and the artifice must be introduced in so subtle a manner as to make it seem natural.
--A.W. Tillinghast
(Or you can just pour concrete over it.)
Dan,
If you got a big enough property to find 18 good tee and green sites, how long would the walks be between holes?
I agree with you that, given a big enough property, THAT aspect (and it is only ONE aspect) of routing shouldn't be too hard, and that you could do it. I could, too, given a big enough property. Like Nebraska, let's say.
But that brings up several problems. GCA's don't get unlimited property to find those 18 tee and greens sites, and the land they ARE getting as we move into the 21st century is more and more marginal as walkable golf courses.
I want them to keep building golf courses on that marginal land, and I'm willing to ride a cart to play 'em. Some of those courses will be a blast to play, and my life will be enriched by playing golf, even on the ones that aren't "great". I'll walk when I can, and ride when I have to, and love playing our great game either way. Hell, I'm 57 and I still dream about playing golf, and still get butterflies thinking about the Sat. a.m. points game at my club for $20! I play in the rain, I play in the heat, I play in the cold, and I once played the last 16 holes of a round with blood flowing constantly after a ball hit me in the head and took off the top part of my right ear! I finished the round, and THEN went to the ER because I couldn't bear to stop. (BTW, that round was played in a cart, which was fortunate because I was too dizzy to walk far after I got hit.)
I realize that others here do not share those views, and you are entitled to those opinions.
And with that, I'm done on this thread, I think.
-
A.G._Crockett writes:
And with that, I'm done on this thread, I think.
Don't skeedaddle just yet. What did Park/Watson do to deserve your scorn for letting the PGA Tour screw up a course? You do realize both Park and Watson are long gone, and have no say on what happens to a course when they are dead and buried.
If you got a big enough property to find 18 good tee and green sites, how long would the walks be between holes?
What walks? You just lay concrete.
I agree with you that, given a big enough property, THAT aspect (and it is only ONE aspect) of routing shouldn't be too hard, and that you could do it. I could, too, given a big enough property. Like Nebraska, let's say.
So we are in agreement, the smaller the property the more skill it will take to make a good routing. I was under the impression in our last cross post you were saying cartball routing also require special skills. How special can it be if both you and I have that skill?
I want them to keep building golf courses on that marginal land, and I'm willing to ride a cart to play 'em.
I played Plantation Course once. I'll never go back. If I'm on Maui I'll play Waiehu. I have ridden in carts now and then, usually because someone I'm golfing with will ride in a cart. But I no longer go to cartball courses. I have better ways to spend my time and money. I get a choice on where I spend my money, and choose not to give it to those that have cartball courses built. I try to avoid spending money on things I don't believe in.
Cheers,
Dan King
He who has the fastest golf cart never has a bad lie.
--Mickey Mantle, 1962
-
I want them to keep building golf courses on that marginal land, and I'm willing to ride a cart to play 'em. Some of those courses will be a blast to play, and my life will be enriched by playing golf, even on the ones that aren't "great". I'll walk when I can, and ride when I have to, and love playing our great game either way.
I don't know about this. I think there have been enough mediocre cartball golf courses built in the last few decades to last an eternity. We need more excellent traditional golf courses so more people can taste what they are giving up by settling for nice views from the seat of a cart.
. . . I once played the last 16 holes of a round with blood flowing constantly after a ball hit me in the head and took off the top part of my right ear! I finished the round, and THEN went to the ER because I couldn't bear to stop. (BTW, that round was played in a cart, which was fortunate because I was too dizzy to walk far after I got hit.
Ouch. Was the course called Tyson National?
-
Last weekend we got paired up with a father and son (probably high school) both apparently in good physical condition, riding in a cart. I finally asked them why they decided to take a cart and they explained that they hadn't really even thought about it. They had been playing nearby cartball courses on the weekends and had apparently become used to it, so walking was no longer even a consideration. Unfortunately more and more golfers take that seat in a cart at one of these cartball courses and the inertia just keeps them there, and in the long run golf becomes less interesting as a result.
So yes, it'd be nice if they stayed at Moorpark CC or Tierrable Rejada or Lost Canyons and left Rustic Canyon to us, but it would be even nicer if all four were excellent walking courses instead of just the one.
David,
I think Yale is an interesting course to look at for carts. In the old days Yale had caddies and was obviously walking only. Over the years, the cart paths were put in and clearly it hurt a few holes (see 3 and 9). Now there is a still a hard core crew of walkers, but many do not even think of walking Yale. When it is Reunion weekend and the 50 year reunion tees off, obviously there is a place for carts at Yale in the modern world.
Jay,
You asked earlier and my mole over at Max's tells me that you are a big topic of conversation. 8) Don't ask me for details because I don't have them and I only want to stir the pot . ;)
-
Jay,
You asked earlier and my mole over at Max's tells me that you are a big topic of conversation. 8) Don't ask me for details because I don't have them and I only want to stir the pot . ;)
Thanks, that's all the info I need. Sorry you feel the need to stir the pot. I hope you overcome it. Schadenfreude doesn't look good on anyone.
-
David,
I think Yale is an interesting course to look at for carts. In the old days Yale had caddies and was obviously walking only. Over the years, the cart paths were put in and clearly it hurt a few holes (see 3 and 9). Now there is a still a hard core crew of walkers, but many do not even think of walking Yale. When it is Reunion weekend and the 50 year reunion tees off, obviously there is a place for carts at Yale in the modern world.
Mike, I've no doubt there is a place for carts at Yale and most other courses in the modern world. But while I haven't played it, I suspect that Yale is a better course because it was designed for walking. It is not about the carts, it's about the courses.
Jay,
You asked earlier and my mole over at Max's tells me that you are a big topic of conversation. 8) Don't ask me for details because I don't have them and I only want to stir the pot . ;)
Last time I was over there Jay was far from a big topic of conversation. Jim Engh approach to design was actually being discussed (as opposed to most of the conversation over here) and it is hard to have a conversation about Engh without Jay and Matt coming up, but this hardly makes them a big topic of conversation. I don't recall much of substance said about either that we don't all know anyway.
Here you are causing trouble even after I told you I didn't want another fight . . .
-
Here you are causing trouble even after I told you I didn't want another fight . . .
I know I know.... I was being bad.
As my Uncle Willie used to say, "There's a little Cop in all the Irish." Cheers.