The "Walk in the Park" test?

[Mark_Fine]

I don't want to ruffle the feathers of the Golfweek guys because I respect most of them and think they've done a pretty good job with their evaluations.  Although I still think a golf course is a golf course no matter when it was built, I've told Brad Klein numerous times that one of the best things about his "classic courses" list is that it encourages the older clubs to "retain" and/or "restore" their classic design features  

However, when it comes to the 99% out there who look at these rankings and see a rating criteria like the "walk in the park" test, I have to believe it might give them the wrong perception!  If you think about it, when most people (including golfers) think about taking a walk in the park, they probably think about beautiful trees, lush green grass, stone benches and fountains, occasional flower beds and/or pretty plantings, and so on.  Does it potentially send the wrong message?  I'm sure us purists interpret it differently, but I know I've struggled to explain what is really meant by this to members of my club as they stand with their arms around a "tree" and say, "You can't suggest cutting this down!  I love this tree!  And please leave my azaleas plants alone.  They are so pretty behind that green".  

If we're going to use this site to change perceptions, maybe this is a good place to start as thousands of golfers read and follow these ratings.  Should the "walk in the park" description be a key criteria in rating golf courses and would it help the cause if Golfweek changed it?  

Mark

[Dunlop_White]

Mark,

As defined, this criterion has merit. It perhaps is the most important of all GW's rating criteria. The "Walk in the Park Test" is the degree to which the course is ultimately worth spending 3.5 hours as a compelling outdoor experience.

However, if the general golfing public misperceives its meaning by attaching "beautiful trees, lush green grass, stone benches, fountains, and occasional flower beds" to the word ......"Park", such an association may simply justify a name change, but nothing more. But that is for Brad to say!

[A_Clay_Man]

While I can't and wouldn't speak for Brad Klein, I am in the midst of reading his "Rough Meditations". The essays on Caddying, are to say the least, telling. The term, walk in the park, is often used esoterically by the cadets to describe an overall day, much like "day at the beach" is used.

So perhaps, it being in quotes, is meant to convey some intrinsic value that is hard to put into words, and is not necc meant to be literal. I think the verstilaty it evokes is a personal one and therefore means different things to different people. Trees notwithstanding.

I find it hard to believe that the general public, who have a propensity to ride in carts, would "get it" if it were literal.

[Tim Weiman]

Mark Fine:

When I think about "walk in the park" my mind turns to a place like Woking - perhaps because the common land aspect actually makes it a true walk in the park for non golfers.

If you mean to suggest the existence of this criteria somehow undermines golf architecture, I don't see that.

[Will E]

Mark,
Great points. I was up at Whistling Straits last weekend, where walking is pretty much required. It is great, however, it's as much of a walk in the park as a good rock climb. Just wait until the PGA in 2004, the pros will provide a lot of whine to go with the WI. cheese. Ask the caddies if they think the course is a good walk in the park. Maybe I just don't understand "walk in the park". A great walk in the park course would be the nine hole Dunes club.
Tim,
Just how good is Woking? It's on my short list of courses to get to and I don't know too many who have seen it.

[Mark_Fine]

I know what Brad means by "walk in the park" because I know Brad.  All I'm saying is that it can have negative connotations when applied to a golf course for the reasons cited.  When you think of "walk in the park" what do you think of?  Sand Hills doesn't come to mind  
Mark

[Tim Weiman]

Shooter,

I've walked but not played Woking. However, I would recommend it if you are in London. Look up Russell Talley who works not far from the course and I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

There is a peaceful, low key atmosphere about the place that I really enjoyed.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Mark - Well outlined but you are missing a very important part of our rating criteria.  Unlike Digest, who attempts to quantify the "sub-components" of greatness and add them together for a total, GW's categories, like walk-in-the-park, are only used subjectively.  If I give a "10" to the walk in the park category, I am still free to give a "1" to the overall score.  The overall score is all that is counted when the averages are computed and the top 100 rankings determined.

All ten GW rating categories are meant to be used by a GW rater to get him/her thinking of architectural issues.  The grades (numbers) assigned to the ten categories have no numeric effect on the actual score given a course.

JC

[Mark_Fine]

Jonathan,
Most people don't "study" the rating criteria in the detail that we might.  But if they see something about "the walk in the park" test, they can probably relate to that more so then design integrity or course routing,...  

That's all I'm implying here!  I'm not trying nor do I want to critique the whole process.  

Mark

[Rob_Waldron]

I have my own interpretation for "The Walk in Park Test".  It takes into consideration multiple aspects of the surroundings that contribute to the overall experience. Golf Digest captures this in thier esthetics and ambiance categories. Personally I like to consider trees, flowers, and other natural vegetation, views uninterupted by homes and buildings, as well as the absence of traffic noise.

Here is a simple test to determine whether a course makes the grade for a "Walk in the Park". Would you ever consider finding a place on the course to roll out a blanket and share a bottle of fine wine with your lady of choice?

I guess you might have to consider this the "Roll in the Park Test!

[Mark_Fine]

Rob,
Your comments are one more reason showing why its a hard concept to grasp.  

When I step on the tee to play a course like Hoylake, I don't think of it as a walk in the park.  It's more a survival test  
Mark