I recently visited Tobacco Road GC in N. Carolina, for a 90 hole visit, having read about M. Stranz, seen photos etc, Royal County Down being my favourite course too...
To keep my post as brief as possible - I found the course to be unwalkable. Several green to tee distances are so long that under normal playing conditions, I'd guess that the walker could actually slow the carts down by 10 - 15 minutes (if the next hole was open upon arrival at the tee). Much as I prefer to walk, I'm not an asshole, so when I had to, I rode.
In my travels, I research fairly extensively, and always check if a course is 'walkable' and doesn't have mandatory cart rules, if they do, I don't visit... So this is the first time this has happened to me.
I'd certainly agree that this is great bunch of golf holes and I enjoyed many of them (especially after I secured a driving 'caddy').
My question is, and this is serious - Can we call it a golf course if it is excluding the walker??

I played it about 4 times when I was over 50 years old and am always 50 #s overweight.  I walked it each of those times.  I didn't find it a terribly difficult walk.  As stated, only 14-15 was a bit of a hike.  

Da Mare has already spoken!

That was kind of funny as I remember it.  We left the carts there, hoisted the bags and left the starter to ferry the carts back to the house...

lloydcole,

I don't know how well you know this site...but Kapalula is one of the most loved courses of GCA.com...our beloved founder recently ordained it the number one course on tour.   It is not walkable and was never intended to be.

So should I assume that's not an issue here??
I was certainly intruiged by the fact that the walkability factor was not mentioned (as a negative) in any of the reviews or ratings  I'd seen published of TR.
I'm just a 'newbie'. But if walking is not integral to your experience, maybe (to quote P Dobreiner) we're playing different games.
One of the marshalls at TR told me that, aside from the college kids (who are not allowed to ride), they get a max of 10 walkers per year. Exactly how many of them do you think were course raters?
And how many course raters/amateur course critics ever walk??
How can you rate the 'walkability' of a course if you didn't walk it?

lloydcole
>>>Much as I prefer to walk, I'm not an asshole, so when I had to, I rode.>>>

Very colourful.

We understand it was a labor for YOU to walk, but what was your impression of the design? Did you enjoy the course?

Please
My issue here was not with the design (which for individual holes I found excellent) but with the concept.
Is a track which is all but unwalkable a 'golf course' or is it a series of holes connected by cart paths??

I suppose I should add, given the possible insinuation, that I'm 40 something, in pretty good shape, and I had no problem playing 42 holes last July at Birkdale, walking, and 36 holes of links golf, carrying my own bag is about the best day I could imagine.

I think you're hearing that a number of people don't agree with you that the course is "unwalkable".  It's true that the walk from 14-15 is fairly long, but I don't agree with most of your other examples.  For example, you state that you love RCD.  The walk from #9 to #10 at RCD is not much longer than at TR.  And it's true that some of the walks at TR go along the cart-path, but they are direct from tees to greens on 2, 3 (just leave your bag as you approach #2 green), and 13.  

And as far as walks through sandy areas, I suppose you think Pine Valley is ultimately unwalkable as well?  

lloydcole
I take it when you scored well, you enjoyed the course, when you struggled, you did not.

Next.

Lloyd -

Try not to let Roger's curt posts get to you - you've asked a valid question that has been addressed on here before.

It largely boils down to one's individual tastes. There are some of us on here who would rather walk a "lesser" course than ride a "better" one and there are others that view riding as no big deal, simply a way to get in more holes with less fatigue. My own particular preference is definitely the former and there are stalwarts on here who don't consider any unwalkable course a golf course, but rather cartball courses.

As to the course in question, I would tend to side with you on it being ill suited for walkers. The ride from 14 to 15 was one of the longest I've ever seen, but maybe someone who walked the course frequently would find shortcuts to make it better.

Keep posting.

Lloyd, I last played TR about 2000.  But if memory serves, I am guessing that walk between 14 par 3 and 15 par 4 is about the length of a long par 5.  So, if you haven't really had any trouble walking 27 or 36 on tight layouts, what is so tough about walking 19 - or 20 holes if you add the extra 200 or so yards from 9 green to 10 tee?  I agree that with some of the walk outs across sand from some of the tees, or following the cart paths, it is a wee bit further and harder than traditionally walkable courses.  I certainly wouldn't say the course at TR is a comfortable walk.  But, I've walked alot harder courses.  In fact, I'd have to say that Sand Hills is as vigorous of a walk as TR.  No one is knocking that one and evaluating it downwards for "un-walkability".  

Now, if you want to speak about actual course design elements as they effect playability, TR has generated some spirited debate here on GCA.  The pro-Strantz camp (I being one of them) think it is a really fresh, quirky yet full of good golf concept fun.  1 between the sand dunes off tee and through notch in dunes 2nd shot, 3 turtle back long angled green, 4 bell hole bling LZ on right and carry around sand area second shot bite off, 5 do or die carry to short par 4 to huge false front green or safe route right, 6 double green multi tee angles par3, 8 huge steep tri-tiered green par 3, 9 to a sliver of a green with huge trouble left and right of green, 11 big looping biteoff par 5, 13, one of the oddest green sites on a par 5 calling for a third shot pitch into an exagerated punch bowl or through a narrow notch, 15 with a dual fairway in the LZ and a shallow odd green ( you should have seen it the first months with the 20ft hill guarding the left front of green), 16 short dogleg left with pitch up into an amphitheater of a green site for second shot, 17 par 3 to a huge double green that is like two bath tubs at each end and shallow in middle, and big scarry carry over sand cliff wall off 18 tee to bell hole LZ.   The anti-Strantz design camp find it over-the-top citing just about all of the above reasons I love it.  

PS:  I don't ever remember hitting an errant shot anywhere on the course that I couldn't get back in the race with a punchout or recovery shot so some sort.  Sure bogey and doubles are always a real possibility with a miscue, but I don't remember being dead and no options anywhere on the course.

OK
My last post for this subject.
The issue was not intended to be specific to TR, but as most all the replies have been let's look at it specifically. It is fresh in my memory.
On a pre cart design, one can probably fairly say that, on average, as a walker I (at least) keep up with the pair in the cart because -
1/ A hits it left, B hits right, and by the time they've figured which 4 clubs to carry over to the ball I'm at my ball and we hit in the correct order.
2/ Walks from green to tee are seldom long.
3/ There is generally a direct walking route which is shorter than the cart route.
4/ Having the bag available by the green saves time.
The following features at TR add to the walk time
holes 2, 8, 13, 18 - no direct walk route
green to tee long walks 9-10, 12-13, 14-15
The prevalence of the elevated tee hitting over waste areas. The intial 50 - 100 yards on many holes is tough going. Carts whizz past this.
All of which is not to say that TR is unwalkable - I did walk it, twice. I like a good walk. I do not like to hold up my playing partners.
In my estimation, as a walker, I would slow down my playing partners by at least 15 minutes over 18 holes, that is conservative. I would not be comfortable with that.

Evan:

I don't recall Tobacco Road being especially difficult to walk......especially for a group that later walked another 18 on the Ross course in about 2:40 hours.

Fun trip, if memory serves me.

Tim

This may be an unpopular solution, but I would love to see courses that only have a couple of long walks to shuttle players between those greens and tees.  This plan would offset the pace of play issue, because its well-established that cognisant walkers play holes just as fast as carts, but of course walkers cannot keep up with carts on a 1 mile journey from green to tee.  I know this happens at Kapalua during the Mercedes Championships.

As mentioned, this only occurs 2 or 3 times at TR.  It would be wonderful if a ranger would shuttle the occasional walker on these journeys to keep the pace of play.  Personally, I found all of the holes at TR a pleasant and dramatic walk.  However, I mostly ran the long walks at TR to keep up with my riding playing partners.

Pete

I lve to walk, but in todays world, especially in the US, there are loads of golf projects that would be completely unfeasible without being in a residential development. In this case, more often than not, the golf course is a means to sell houses, therefore the houses dictate where the golf corridors will go. In cases such as this, it becomes extremely difficult (read: cost effective) to route the course in such a manner as to promote walking. The developers are by far and away more concerned with squeezing as many homes on site as possible. So if short walks between holes results in 10 fewer lots, then the developer is very likely to say that 10 lots are more impotant than 10 minutes of walking time.

It's not a trend I like, but it's a design characteristic that is very common in developing suburban neighborhoods.

Houses + wetlands and environmenal areas often force long walks. This detracts from the overall quality of courses, but does not prevent the keen architect/developer from combining houses and GREAT golf in sucsessful projects.