News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #50 on: September 25, 2009, 06:09:45 PM »

As for the rest, who would you rather have as your customers in the long run, those regular players who appreciate subtlety or those that are there for the awe and excitement and the spectacular view?  Which type of golfer do you suppose is better for golf?

David,

This is an interesting thought, and likely worthy of its own thread.

My first thought is about who I want for a customer. And the only way to answer it is to have a goal as a course owner/ operator. No matter what though, you have to make enough to exist in the future....unless the operation is a tax write off in a wealthy persons portfolio....but that type of owner probably has no interest in who their customer is.

The second thought revolves around the question "Which type of golfer is better for golf?"

I don't know what that means. Image? Longevity? Popularity and participation? History? Personal preference?

What is it exactly that humans will do to benefit a game? How is the game of golf separated and/ or joined with/from the industry of golf?

There's a lot there, and I don't have many answers, but plenty of questions.

Joe

" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #51 on: September 25, 2009, 06:18:08 PM »
I don't think either one of us has factually addressed your contention that walking courses are simply better. Off the top of my head, I would say your assessment is governed by your perpective, nothing else. But, I guess its not facts, its opinions so its hard to disagree with you.

So it's just a coincidence that virtually all of the top rated courses are walkable?

George,

I guess I thought I answered it in the answer to david about general trends.  I will also add that the old standbys of why we love old courses:

1. History, which contribute to experience, etc. are also mixed in there
2. Smaller, quaint scale of some older courses, their wholly enclosed nature (vs going through housing more often) etc.
3. A generally different look of old courses, since most of us are now used to playing modern courses. 

David,

Knock yourself out on pure golf enjoyment.

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #52 on: September 25, 2009, 06:23:25 PM »
Go down to your basic no name muni that is a easy/manageable walk and you will have your answer as to which type of golfer is keeping this game alive.  Cart riders far outweigh the walkers....

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #53 on: September 25, 2009, 06:31:15 PM »
pp - pine valley certainly isn't all that subtle

i receive enjoyment and pleasure walking around my block and do so often
i would receive minimal enjoyment riding a cart around the block

better feel for the land
better pacing for my next shot
more anticipation

today i saw a bunch of push carts on the course - nice
i rode with the group and didn't like the courses nearly as much as when i walk them
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #54 on: September 25, 2009, 06:39:28 PM »
Go down to your basic no name muni that is a easy/manageable walk and you will have your answer as to which type of golfer is keeping this game alive.  Cart riders far outweigh the walkers....

This is not even remotely true at my home muni.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #55 on: September 25, 2009, 06:47:18 PM »
Just throwing this out there:

Designing with the additional goal of making a course walkable is adding an additional constraint, therefore it is more difficult, by definition.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #56 on: September 25, 2009, 06:49:13 PM »
Go down to your basic no name muni that is a easy/manageable walk and you will have your answer as to which type of golfer is keeping this game alive.  Cart riders far outweigh the walkers....

This is not even remotely true at my home muni.

Its true of pretty much every muni/public course I've played across several states in the west.  Certainly there will be exceptions to the rule no doubt though!  ;)

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #57 on: September 25, 2009, 06:56:41 PM »
Go down to your basic no name muni that is a easy/manageable walk and you will have your answer as to which type of golfer is keeping this game alive.  Cart riders far outweigh the walkers....

This is not even remotely true at my home muni.

Its true of pretty much every muni/public course I've played across several states in the west.  Certainly there will be exceptions to the rule no doubt though!  ;)

Kalen -

If it makes you feel better, it is not even remotely true at many muni and muni-type courses in western PA. You Westerners must be lazy.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #58 on: September 25, 2009, 06:58:23 PM »
Go down to your basic no name muni that is a easy/manageable walk and you will have your answer as to which type of golfer is keeping this game alive.  Cart riders far outweigh the walkers....

This is not even remotely true at my home muni.

Its true of pretty much every muni/public course I've played across several states in the west.  Certainly there will be exceptions to the rule no doubt though!  ;)

Kalen -

If it makes you feel better, it is not even remotely true at many muni and muni-type courses in western PA. You Westerners must be lazy.

Lol,

Well i don't personally care if folks walk or ride, but glad to hear that Western PA is alive and walking!!!

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #59 on: September 25, 2009, 07:18:25 PM »
Peter,
Just so I understand, have you just told me what I am thinking, dismissed what you thinking because you find it too broad and subjective, tell me to follow your own subjective standard that you yourself don't use?  Would you like to respond for me, too?

George, better for golf is probably all that at least.

Mike,  those are good additions.  There is nothing like knowing land intimately, as if it were an extension of youself.

Kalen.  My local muni has cartballers but most walk.  Regardless, you help make my point for me.  Whether walking or riding those muni golfers are returning week after week to a course designed for walking, aren't they?   
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #60 on: September 25, 2009, 07:37:26 PM »
David,

Living here in the SLC area, I'm able to see a pretty good perspective on this type of thing because about 2/3 rds of the courses are very walkable/manageable to walk. Of the remaing 1/3rd approx half of those would be "tough walks" and the other half pretty much unwalkable due to being built on very mountainous terrain.

In my experience they are all equally busy and seem to do well to keep the tee sheets full everywhere.  Additionally every one of them is chock full of carts.  Sadly, even the 9 hole courses have far more carts than one would expect to see, although generally there are more walkers on the 9 hole courses than there are riders.

So from my observation it would appear that whether its a manageable course to walk or not it has no basis on how its supported....because most just ride anyways.  I think it would be interesting to see which courses get the most rounds on annual basis though.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #61 on: September 25, 2009, 07:55:08 PM »
Go down to your basic no name muni that is a easy/manageable walk and you will have your answer as to which type of golfer is keeping this game alive.  Cart riders far outweigh the walkers....

This is not even remotely true at my home muni.

Or any muni I have visited recently.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #62 on: September 25, 2009, 07:56:55 PM »
Go down to your basic no name muni that is a easy/manageable walk and you will have your answer as to which type of golfer is keeping this game alive.  Cart riders far outweigh the walkers....

This is not even remotely true at my home muni.

Its true of pretty much every muni/public course I've played across several states in the west.  Certainly there will be exceptions to the rule no doubt though!  ;)

I suppose when you are in a cart, it looks like everyone else is in a cart.
 ;D
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #63 on: September 25, 2009, 08:52:17 PM »
Kalen,  I think we may still be talking past each other.  Whatever happens at each of our local munis, hopefully we can agree that many more people ride than used to.  My interest is what, if anything, we give up in terms of golf design when designers create courses for cart riders but not walkers. 

As for which are busier courses bullt for walking or courses built for riding, there are other factors at issue including convenience and price.    But in Southern California there is no doubt that the older courses -- those built for walking -- are much busier than the newer built for carts courses.  There is a public course a few blocks from my house but years could pass before I ever managed to secure a weekend morning time (that is if I tried.)    Price surely enters into this, but price is not totally irrelevant to the discussion, at least as it relates to covering the cost of creating some of these shock and awe courses.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Peter Pallotta

Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #64 on: September 25, 2009, 10:39:26 PM »
David - no, just suggesting that the case might better be made moving from the specific to the general...
Peter

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #65 on: September 25, 2009, 10:59:34 PM »
Getting back to the initial thought - can anyone think of a "modern classic" that would have been better if it had been designed for cart golf?

- Sand Hills
- Ballyneal
- Friars Head
- Any of the Bandon Courses
- RCCC
- etc.

I still stand by the thought that while a walking course does put certain constraints on an architect, it also pushes their creativity and routing skills to a higher level, and thus produces better product - meaning - more cohesive, better paced, using every bit of interesting terrain possible within the area available for a walking routing.

I think the proof is in Bandon Trails and Friars Head.

As a cart golf course, the architect would probably never have been able to seamlessly route the course from dunes to meadows to forest (in the case of BT) or from dunes to farmland (in the case of FH).

At "cart pace" the transition would have been jarring - but at a walking pace - over the course of several holes - the transition is much more seamless.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #66 on: September 26, 2009, 05:21:20 AM »
This is an interesting conversation.  Putting aside the long term financial benefits of creating courses which are essentially for riders, the best examples of modern classics Rob chucks out are essentially for rich folks.  The Bandon courses may be affordable for the less than rich, but only once in a while - vacation type place.  I think it better to stick to the courses which are much more readily affordable for the rank and file golfer as examples. 

I keep finding myself looking back at Lederach - a course I was hugely impressed with and one that I believe bucks the trend of modern design despite the cart issues.  So far as I am concerned it is a cartball course because of the long, unpleasant walks which break the game up.  For sure there are many out there who would walk it, but being used to what I think of as proper walking courses in the UK I have no patience for this sort of thing.  Of course, the cartballing is due to housing rather than terrain, but what is interesting is that KBM didn't go for the wow look at look at all despite some areas which are heavily manufactured.  The course is essentially a subtle design with quirky features, but it does offer interesting visuals.  I say subtle because it would take several visits to learn that course and I have no doubt some of those visits to learn it wouldn't be necessary if I walked the fairways rather than rode the edges.  I know the course impressed me enough that I would have another go if in Philly despite the cart issues. 

What really strikes me about Ledrach from a retail PoV is folks don't seem bothered that it is a riding course on land that essentially should have accommodated a walking course quite easily.  Folks are bothered by the quirk of the course, something which flies completely over my head in terms of a negative aspect. 

When I look at Tobacco Road, I get a different feeling. My gut says this course could have been more walkable, but Strantz decided to put in the wow factor which compromised the walking aspect of the course a bit.  Now, that is just my feeling and I could be wrong.  Plus, The Road is walkable, but I don't like the walk especially when I come across cool transitions from green to tee such as 15 to 16 - it gets me thinking of why I don't see more of this sort of thing on the course.  This is interesting for me because I generally can forgive a bit of extra work if there is a pay day at the end of it, but I don't get this vibe at The Road at all.   So I look at the course completely differently than Lederach.  Now what is the difference between the two in terms of the site?  Both are fairly hilly, rolling, but not harsh.  Both sits allow for really interesting golf shots.  Lederach is a housing course, while TR is not, but there are road issues and a cement plant to deal with.  One thing that stands out at TR is that it is a dusty track and in a hot, humid climate - making it not a particularily  pleasant walk, but PA gets hot in the summer too.  I know I don't like heat for playing golf in and this would be a huge factor for me if playing a mountain course which also tend to get more sun - something I try to stay out of as much as possible within reason. 

Now, if you get a guy like me who walks damn near 100% of played rounds moaning about heat, sun, longish walks from tee to green, what do we expect from the casual player out for a bit of fun 12 or 15 times a year?  Its difficult to understand why many developers would not design courses for carts regardless of what they may or may not do to the quality of a course.   

To further delve into the question of subtle/wow factor, I don't know which is better or if there is such a thing. But I do know its site dependent and I believe archies have to make decisions on how much of each strikes the right balance in relation to the style of course it is from either a walking or riding perspective.  This isn't always the case, but given how many courses there are in the world, far more often than not I strongly suspect that some wow factor has to be given up for the walker if the course is to be a good walking course.  Ok, sometimes the designer cheats a bit with the back tee concept and offers the grand vista, but this can often mean breaking up the intimacy of a round.  Some people are happy to do this and some are not bothered.  This is why I think the archie can and must get the balance right if he endeavours to build a proper walking course and not just one in name. 

Finally, todays equipment often spurs designers/developers to build longer, less walker friendly courses in terms of sheer length and extra walking to tees (walking back on oneself), which can often times save on buying the extra land compared to building tees in a constant forward motion with no back walks.  In other words, you don't come across many 7000 yarders which keep going forward unless the cart is involved which takes the player to a completely different area from the last green. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #67 on: September 26, 2009, 08:28:20 AM »
Kalen,  I think we may still be talking past each other.  Whatever happens at each of our local munis, hopefully we can agree that many more people ride than used to.  My interest is what, if anything, we give up in terms of golf design when designers create courses for cart riders but not walkers. 


David I agree with this and think it would be interesting to find out some real data on whether older more walkable courses get more play vs. newer modern ones.  As much as all of our collective personal experience is interesting, its woefully incomplete and far from establishing anything even near a cause/effect relationship.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #68 on: September 26, 2009, 08:40:18 AM »
Getting back to the initial thought - can anyone think of a "modern classic" that would have been better if it had been designed for cart golf?

- Sand Hills
- Ballyneal
- Friars Head
- Any of the Bandon Courses
- RCCC
- etc.

I still stand by the thought that while a walking course does put certain constraints on an architect, it also pushes their creativity and routing skills to a higher level, and thus produces better product - meaning - more cohesive, better paced, using every bit of interesting terrain possible within the area available for a walking routing.

I think the proof is in Bandon Trails and Friars Head.

As a cart golf course, the architect would probably never have been able to seamlessly route the course from dunes to meadows to forest (in the case of BT) or from dunes to farmland (in the case of FH).

At "cart pace" the transition would have been jarring - but at a walking pace - over the course of several holes - the transition is much more seamless.

Robb,

Of course, probably not.  Those courses are specifically built to the idea of pure golf enjoyment, much like the old days.

The real question is, IMHO, if a course is built to sell houses first (and bunkers laid out as much to provide a view from the side as to challenge golfers) can it be a great course when not exactly shooting for the stars in its original goal?  Can a muni designed to be "freeway golf" be a great course when its goal is to introduce the game to beginners?

The quality of those courses is set by the owners goals, the spectacular sites and the talent of the gca's, in approximately that order. 

IMHO, those courses could all add at least green to tee paths and would still be classics, BTW.  Hey, in the case of BT, they aleady need a shuttle to get you over the hill.  I guess that makes it kind of a tweener, a real world intersection of admirable walking only goal vs hilly site.  The gca could minimize riding, but not totally eliminate it. 

Here is a provocative question - Will Bandon and Chambers Bay ever go to carts and cart paths in whole or in part?  We already see the financial pressure at CB and a county govt. can't, I think, lose money on that forever.  What happens when the USGA subsidy runs out?  I don't foresee Mr. Keiser ever allowing carts at Bandon, but of course, he won't live forever and what happens with the eventual buyer?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #69 on: September 26, 2009, 09:29:28 AM »
Grassland Barley,

I know what you are saying, but I don't think the argument need be made by dictate of the USGA or any other governing body.  I suspect the walking courses are generally better golfing experiences no matter what the USGA said.   But if not, I'd like to figure that out as well.

So the question is why is a walking course inherently better?   What makes it better?   What do we lose architecturally with courses built for riding only?

I'm not sure I can articulate this very well but I'll try and answer some of the questions David posed.

To me some of the best courses work as a course rather than a series of individual holes ie a routing of 18 holes where the golfer is lead on a journey where one hole follows another and the architect dictates the pace. Somehow when you are on a cart, and particularly where there is a distance between holes, the holes become disconnected and rather than being on a continious journey.

Its like the difference between a greatest hits album and your favourite album. The later might have songs which might not be the best on their own but they work together better in a particular sequence than say the greatest hits album. Cart courses where the architect is free to do what he wants can be a bit like the gretaest hits album with 18 no. 1's but not as good some how as your favourite album/walking course.

Not sure that makes sense but there you go.

Niall
« Last Edit: September 26, 2009, 09:34:31 AM by Niall Carlton »

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #70 on: September 26, 2009, 12:59:35 PM »
Jeff,

I think you are correct - most courses cannot strive for "pure golf enjoyment" - due to constraints whether they are financial, RE, etc.

I think you have a fair point about CB - because of the fescue fairways, they would probably need to keep the carts on the paths, but since the terrain can be fairly challenging for some walkers it is a reasonable question, especially when economics comes into it.

I think Bandon will survive as a walking only resort because, at least on BD and PD, there really is not any room for carts paths around some of the greens and along some of the holes. I think the fescue grass will prevent it and I think that even in the long term they will keep it walking only. Their business model is also pretty darn solid.

Sean,

Those are good points - I did call out some "rich guy clubs" although I do think that Bandon is fairly accessible for most golfers (of course I live on the west coast).

One of the reasons I was asking about "great cart golf courses" is because I have not spent much time in the various parts of the country where they are prevalent. There are several "orange", "red" or "cart only" courses in Bend that I firmly believe could have been better as walking courses - but they could also have been better than they are as cart courses (hopefully that makes sense - what I am saying is that the architects did not necessarily make the best use of the site regardless of walkability).

Niall,

I totally agree with you - and I think that this is a matter of opinion for sure.

When Mr Engh was talking about finding the best holes on the property I think he is going with the Greatest Hits approach which a lot of people like - the flow is not as good, but on a hole by hole basis it is certainly possible to get a lot more "wow" - Many of the great walking courses - such as Ballybunion for example - are great because of that journey, that may have one of two "okay" holes - but as a continuous routing are tremendous.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #71 on: September 26, 2009, 06:48:21 PM »
Some great posts above, very thoughtful.

Sean,  

I am not sure I understand your "courses for rich folks" dismissal of Rob's list.   It might be more accurate to say these were courses commissioned by rich folks, or at least by developers who were willing to take a chance on something very different than what was going on in golf course development.   I may be wrong but I think that generally, the costs of creating walkable courses that use the land as it is are relatively low if one sets aside side specific issues that any type of course would have to face.  For example, it had to be very expensive to deal with the boulders at RCCC and to fight whatever permitting battles were necessary at Friars Head, but as for the actual creation of the course, the more traditional golf experience seems to be offer a more sustainable economic approach, at least from the supply side.

Also, while these may be some of best and best known courses of this movement of courses built to offer a more traditional golf experience, they are by no means the only courses.   If I recall correctly, the story is that one well known designer passed on the site at Rustic Canyon because it was just not dramatic enough, then built (at substantially higher cost) a nearby cart ball course on land supposedly offering more drama.   I don't know the details but I think it fair to say that the course has been a financial and critical failure, especially when compared to the simple course built for walking down the road.  Other "poor man's" courses designed with walking in mind have also popped up here and there, haven't they?  

Also, Sean I am not sure I understand what you mean by "the long term financial benefits of carts designed essentially for riders."  If you are talking about cart revenue, won't most Americans ride whether the course is designed essentially for them or not?   So there won't necessarily be a big revenue hit.   It seems like we need to take the different costs of each into consideration and also the long term sustainability of the demand for the course.   Will it still be all the rage when the next cart-ball course is designed down the road?

In fairness to Mr. Engh, I have heard that he is a very cost efficient designer, with accurate bids and very little waste.  I believe his website used to tout his ability to planeverything in great detail on CAD (or something) so that the construction would be efficient, on time, and right the first time.   Or something like that.   His example of the double use of the cart paths at Lakota sounds like a terrific way to resolve a problem in a very cost efficient way.    I don't know how his general approach compares cost-wise to the so-called minimalists, but it would be an interesting comparison, although I do realize these things are very site dependent.  

As for Lederdach and Tobacco Road, I unfortunately haven't played them.   Your description of Lederdach is interesting though because it sounds like, except for the transitions due to housing,  KBM designed the course as one would design a walkable course even though it would not be walkable for most, and it sounds like the course benefited from this.   But surely had it been designed without the housing it could have been even better, couldn't it?  

In contrast, it sounds like Tobacco Road was designed for carts even though potentially walkable and in your opinion at least it lessened the experience.     Let me ask you this, even if we assume that few would have walked at Tobacco Road (because of the weather and dust and such,) could the course have been better if it had been built as if it was going to be for walking-- with less emphasis on going for "wow factor" and more focus on coherent transitions and subtlety?  
____________________________________________
Jeff,

Whether these courses ever allow carts or not, they were designed with walking in mind and that to me might be one of the keys to their quality.   Of the ones I've played, they'd all be worse off with the addition of some of the attributes designing for cartball.  Another way to look at it is to consider Sean's description of Lederdach, which sounds like it may have been designed with walking in mind even though it might be more of a cart ball course.   This is an interesting example to me, because most cartball designers have apparently not given any much consideration to the walker's perspective, and have given little thought to issues such as intimacy, subtlety, continuity, pacing, flow, etc.  

______________________________________________

Niall,

I think you nailed one crucial component of a quality golf course and that is the aspect of exploring or charting a course or taking one continuous adventure.  A single journey.  It matters if and how each successive hole relates to the last and the next, and how they flow through the landscape, each one connected to the last.  

It makes sense to me that on the early on the golfer teed off within a close distance from the last hole.  They were playing a game where you had to live with the consequences of your last shot, and hit the ball from where it ended up.   So what sense would it have made if once they got to a hole they took ball in hand and carried it a 100 yards or so before they started up again?  That would have broken the link on the links. The goal wasn't just to get to the hole.  They then had to get from that hole to the next one, and from there to the next one, and so on.  

This continuous adventure is one of the most compelling aspects of the game, and replicating it or at least approximating it is one of the most compelling challenges for the golf course architect.  Golf at its best is a continuous, contiguous experience.

Take for example Cypress Point, where the golfer must leave the dunes and enter the woods before returning to the dunes.   One of the many things that impresses me about the course is how well AM handled these transitions; but that the golfer isn't jolted from one setting to another.  While the golfer may realize he is is somewhere else he/she still feels connected to what came before and what is to come.   The course provides the golfer with a single authentic experience, and while their are incredible highlights the rest of the course is anything but mundane (except for maybe 18, but it may be too weird to be mundane.) Even where there is nothing spectacular.

Another example by AM and Hunter is the Valley Club.   Not really any "spectacular" holes, but the whole is much greater than the parts, it fits so well in the setting and flows so well that you have had a fanstastic golfing experience without ever delving into the spectacular.

I love your "Greatest Hits" comparison, but I would emphasize that the original albums would be more like Symphonies or Operas (or at least Pink Floyd Albums) where they really were single complete works where each part was intended to interact with the last.    The "Greatest Hits" of Beethoven's Symphonies is sure to have plenty of highlights, but it wouldn't make much sense or hold together like a single complete work.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2009, 07:08:29 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.
« Reply #72 on: September 27, 2009, 01:11:45 AM »
Jeff,

I'm wondering if you saw Mike Young's thread referencing Kyle Phillips' article.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41475.0/
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back