[DMoriarty]

Every time the cart-ball topic comes up, cart-ballers rally behind the "to each his own" and "personal preference" buzz-phrases.    

I say hooie.

Riding is welcome and usually encouraged at all but a few enlightened walkable courses.   In contrast, walking is prohibited and or practically impossible at all but a few cart-ball courses.  

So where is the choice for walkers?  

And don't give me the "so play at the walkable courses" song and dance.  Not enough walkables being built to support this cart-baller propoganda.   This is what these discussions are about!

I always wanted to say hooie.  

[THuckaby2]

There is just a certain joy in saying "hooie."  

But yes, a plague should be cast on courses that absolutely disallow walking.  They should be made a scourge and removed from this earth.  Out, vile demons!

But that's not really the issue, is it, my hooie-saying friend?  Because of course, if one wants to bad enough, one CAN walk Kapalua Plantation.  One CAN walk any course where the rules don't prohibit it.  It's all a matter of what one wants out of the golf round, and/or will put up with to make the round the most fun.

The interesting issue is at courses where walking is allowed, but riding makes the game more fun (for those who think this way).  Like Pasa.  Like Wente Vineyards.  Like Pasadera.  Like both courses at MPCC.  

That is where the personal preference comes in, and yes, to each his own.

But I get your point, which is solid.  Too many unwalkable courses are being built, and not enough that are fun walks.  That does suck.  But what are we gonna do, when the only land available anywhere near urban areas that is financially doable is land like that at The Ranch, Tierra Rejada, etc.?  Land that works for fun walking courses, that can be developed and work financially, has just become so scarce, that we are faced with the reality that we have way too many Moorparks and way too few Rustic Canyons.  What can be done about it?

So is the answer to just NOT build the Moorparks and Tierra Rejadas?  I just can't buy that.  There are plenty of people who like those courses, and if they can't play those, then they make Rustic even MORE crowded.

In a perfect world, there would be doable land all over the place to build more Rustics.  My god could we use one up here.  But the world remains far from perfect, so we select from the lesser of evils.  To me, the evil of building cart-ball courses is better than the evil of NOT building courses at all, making things even more crowded in already overcrowded places.

But I expect you to explain to me why I am full of hooie.

 

[A.G._Crockett]

DMoriarty
How do you feel about the courses, growing in number, who "allow" walking, but charge the same rate whether you ride or walk?

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

DMoriarty
How do you feel about the courses, growing in number, who "allow" walking, but charge the same rate whether you ride or walk?

I don't know what DMor has to say about that, but I see nothing wrong with a flat fee.  We do that on The Ocean Course.  It's the same prices if you ride (cart path only), take a caddie (no caddie fee, only tip) or carry your own bag.  The choice is yours.

You'd be amazed at how many more people began walking out here once we went "cart path only!"

[W.H. Cosgrove]

This is an economic question.  Unwalkable courses get built because they often depend on the surrounding real estate for their economic feasibility.  Other times, I think some architects have gotten lazy when doing their routings. And finally the legal issues around wetlands have become a real impediment to great design.

I played Circling Raven in northern Idaho a few weeks back.  The golf course is very nice and sits on a large piece of property.  I believe that the course could have been made walker friendly with a more compact routing.  As a result, it is a nice group of holes that lack cohesion.  

The wetlands can make routing a difficult process.  Ask Brad Klein and Tim Liddy about the issues around getting Wintonberry Hills routed.  

In a perfect world golf carts would be used only by the infirm.  But external issues have made the darn things a necessity.  And no I do not want to walk the Plantation at Kapalua!!!  That would have to be a survival outing!

[Cliff Hamm]

I have always been a traditionalist and also  would rather walk than ride.  About 2 years ago though I developed back problems which make it impossible for me to walk more than 5 minutes without than lying down for 5 minutes.  Obviously this doesn't work on the golf course and I am forced to take a cart.  I do not have a handicapped license plate so techniceally am not disabled, whcih I would agree with.  I am not, however, able to walk a golf course at this point and avoid path only golf clubs.  I wish it weren't like this but that's the way  it is.  Anyway, do keep in mind that carts are a  necessity for many of us and not just those with significant disabilities.  As with most things in life there are grey areas and there should be flexibility at all clubs.  The walking only clubs should accept a doctor's note and allow those to use a cart and at least a 90 degree rule.  I don't believe that most would abuse this.  I interested as to whether Bandon/Pacifiic Dunes makes appropriate accomodations for those who cannot walk.  Finally Wintonbery Hills is noted which has a cart included in the green fee but requires that carts stay on the path.  I would hope this is short term until the course matures and it is my understanding even those with disabilities are not allowed to get off the paths, which I think is awful if not illegal.

Cliff

[THuckaby2]

If there is any type of golf worse than cart paths only - with walking not allowed - then I don't want to know about it.  Those courses truly do deserve a pox.

But good points are made by WHG and Cliff H.  Some people do NEED to ride, and just as it's not good to mandate riding, I believe it's not good to wholly disallow it also.

And WHG - if you think Kapalua Plantation would be a tough walk, man you have to see this cesspool known as THE RANCH in San Jose, CA.  Only triathletes need apply to walk there.

I guess the main thing here is that WHG is right - it would be nice if architects would TRY harder to make walkable courses.  Oh, at some places it is impossible, thus my points to Dave.  But at places where it is possible, it does seem that too many just punt and figure everyone's gonna ride, so why bother.  That just makes the game more expensive and that's not good either.

There are a lot of variables to this....

TH

[George Pazin]

I'm under the impression that the Bandon complex has carts for such purpose, Mr. Hamm. I don't think even the most strident walkers would object to your situation.

I happen to agree with Dave M's point, for the most part. I think the existence of carts results all too often in excusing a course for a poor routing (by my standards).

It is not even remotely difficult to keep up with carts as a walker on severe terrain, IF there are not long walks between greens and tees. However, through in the long jaunt or six, and you have a completely different situation where walking, while possible, is effectively rendered obsolete. I frequently walk while others ride on very hilly Pittsburgh terrain, but this is usually on older courses where the proximity of green to tee encourages walking. Many or most of the modern courses have long rides in at least a few places which makes things difficult, both physically and mentally (dealing with the people who think you're slowing them down).

As far as one price goes, the free market capitalist in me supports this wholeheartedly, but the golfer in me is disappointed that said courses wouldn't try to encourage walking more.

[DMoriarty]

A.G. Crockett asked:

How do you feel about the courses, growing in number, who "allow" walking, but charge the same rate whether you ride or walk?[/b]

Mixed feelings.  It is absurd, but I probably would not let that by itself keep me from seeing the course.   I like it a whole lot better than what I was recently told at a new course:  "Yes it is easily walkable, but you must pay for and take a cart."  I'd probably say something  to the person charging me, but I'd try to make the point rather indirect.  I dont walk to save money, but because I enjoy walking.  



Tom,

Hooie is not nearly strong enough for you on this issue.  I've heard this all before from you and responded to it in kind.  I was sort of hoping I'd get some new blood with some fresh ideas worth pondering . . .  

You said:

. . .But that's not really the issue, is it, my hooie-saying friend?  Because of course, if one wants to bad enough, one CAN walk Kapalua Plantation.  One CAN walk any course where the rules don't prohibit it.  [/b]

One CANNOT walk Kapalua Plantation, nor almost any other cart-ball course.

  First, it is prohibited.  Last time I played Kapalua, I begged and pleaded to walk.  Even begged again after nine holes.  It was not allowed.   Last time I played Ojai (Ojai!) we took our mandatory cart past all the construction etc, but then tried to leave it so we could walk the lower level of the back side.   Before we were off the tee, a course representative had scolded us and shuffled us back into our carts.  We were about the only ones on the course and we still couldn't walk a course skillfully routed for walking!

  Second, your "anything is potentially walkable" point is completely absurd.   While walking may be "possible" at some of these places, it is completely impractical.   If would  take five or six hours to walk, it isnt practical to walk.  If it would disrupt the flow of cart-ball play (you dont hear that phrase much), it isnt practical to walk.  If it would threaten the health of the able bodied, it is not practical to walk.  If it would require crampons or a safety rope, it isnt practical to walk.  

 Again take our cart-ball poster child, Kapalua.  Some of the treks are just too long to mix walkers with riders.  If walking, I wouldnt be surprised to get passed by trailing groups between some of the holes, assuming a normal busy day with someone in front of me.  Or imagine being the lone walker with three cart-ballers at Kapalua . . . what a treat that would be.  

The interesting issue is at courses where walking is allowed, but riding makes the game more fun (for those who think this way).  Like Pasa.  Like Wente Vineyards.  Like Pasadera.  Like both courses at MPCC. [/b]

Not interesting and definitely not an issue.   If you really get your kicks riding at Monterey and Pasa, by all go to it.  Just dont force me to do it.   Did you even read my post above before you responded?  

But I get your point, which is solid.  Too many unwalkable courses are being built, and not enough that are fun walks.  That does suck.  But what are we gonna do, when the only land available anywhere near urban areas that is financially doable is land like that at The Ranch, Tierra Rejada, etc.?  Land that works for fun walking courses, that can be developed and work financially, has just become so scarce, that we are faced with the reality that we have way too many Moorparks and way too few Rustic Canyons.  What can be done about it?[/b]

The above is urban legend, at least for Ventura Cty.  In this area, the cart-ball courses were built because their developers and architects wanted to build cart ball courses, not because of scarce good land.

You always hold Tierrable Rejada out as an example to support your "no good land" theory.  Not so.   TR came before RC.  According to legend, Cupp passed on the Happy Camp site (RC) and chose the TR site instead!  Moorpark is a housing development and was routed accordingly, using the good land to overlook the course.

So is the answer to just NOT build the Moorparks and Tierra Rejadas?  I just can't buy that.  There are plenty of people who like those courses, and if they can't play those, then they make Rustic even MORE crowded.[/b]

The answer is to use land which is walkable and to be more creative with routing.   Tierra Rejada has lost more money than its customers have lost balls.  I guarantee that anyone who has ever had a stake in it wishes it had never been built.  I'd like to have back the green fee I wasted there.

[A_Clay_Man]

The free market capatist in me can't justify charging for something not used, wanted or needed. Or, dictating that something must be used. Cart Revenues should be looked at as windfalls, not expected.

[THuckaby2]

George:

But take the example of Wente Vineyards.  There, you have a hellacious hike/ride from the 9th green to 10th tee... but the result is four damn good golf holes on top of and coming back down a ridge.  And the end result is a very fine course, as reviewed by Ran here.

My question remains:  should Greg Norman have forsaken those four great golf holes just to make it a better walk?

And I'm not sure if I agree that the existence of carts results "all too often" in excusing a course for a poor routing.  At places where the land allows for a walkable course to be built, walkable courses get built.  But this is a dangerous trend if it's true, and one that needs to be stopped.

Here in CA, the issue is far more courses being built on severe terrain, thereby making walking far more problematic.  And as I say above, if the other choice is no new courses at all, then give me the hilly cart-ball courses.

TH

[Jeff Shelman]

As someone who almost always walks, I am not a fan of the "we'll let you walk, but the price is the same" lingo. To me that is simply the course bending over the walker (for lack of a better term). Now if it was ride or take a caddy, that's different, but there are simply too many courses (new and old) in this country that build in a cart fee.

To a certain extent, I think those courses hurt themselves. If I'm told at a course that it's flat fee and I'm, in effect, charged to walk, I'm probably not going back. I might make an occassional stop there, but it won't be a regular stop.

[Gary_Nelson]

Adam,

Aren't cart revenues the crux of the issue here?  Cart leasing is cheap and is paid off with just a few rentals. The rest is profit.  Except in extreme terrain, wouldn't you say that economics drives the cart rental rather than course routing?

ps.  I've always wanted to say "crux".  

[DMoriarty]

I find it ironic that those in Mr. Hamm's situation are forced to avoid many cart-ball courses because of the growing "cart-path only" trend.  


Carts Manditory . . . Those Who Really Need Carts Not Welcome. [/i]

[Tom_Doak]

For Cliff Hamm:

Bandon Dunes Resort does in fact have a small number of golf carts available to people who need them.  The only rule is that you have to take a caddie to drive the cart; however, the low number of carts also means you sometimes have to wait to get one.

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

1) I didn't know one was disallowed from walking at Kapalua.  When I was there, they offered me the choice of cart or walking with a caddie.  Maybe I was special, I don't know.  But I took the cart (mostly because I was cheap and didn't want to pay for a caddie) and in the end was glad I did.  If walking is disallowed, well then... add this to the list of courses at which a compromise is worth it.  It's a damn fine golf course, as you know.  Skipping it as a matter of principle just doesn't make sense to me, which is my sole and only point about that course.

2) Beyond this, sorry to disappoint you.  But we've batted this around so many times before, well... I haven't changed my position, but neither have you.  You too have made these points countless times before.  And they are not bad ones at all - I don't disagree with your conclusions, just some of your assumptions.  I also find it not nearly as simple as you do. So give me some fresh ideas worth pondering, and perhaps you will get some back!

3) I would NEVER force you to ride anywhere, obviously, and it sucks that that happens.  My point was that at the courses I listed, the walk is quite difficult, and thus FOR ME, more enjoyment is derived by riding, because I get far less fatigued.  But at most other courses, I do prefer to walk.  Heck, even at Pasa and MPCC, the walk is never that bad, so I do so.  But if I am gonna play 36 at either place - which happens frequently - than for one or both of the rounds, I'm gonna prefer to ride.  Thus my point here is that at least for me, it's not so simple to say "walking only or the game doesn't exist."  I also understand that many people do take that stand, and although I don't share it, I can certainly understand it.

4) Tierra Rejada was just one example, used because it is familiar to you.  I know all about the history, thank you.  My point remains that near urban areas, where each of us live, for the most part good walkable land is the exception, not the rule.  You can choose to disagree with that - fine.  It's just my impression.  And for the sake of argument, if I am correct, can you understand that cart-ball courses are better than no courses at all?

5) I absolutely agree 1000000000% with this:

"The answer is to use land which is walkable and to be more creative with routing."

I just am very pessimistic that such land exists any more, in the state of CA.  But here's hoping that I am wrong.

TH  

[A_Clay_Man]

Gary- I'd put the abuses sited above under unethical, not capatalism.
The justifications for building a golf course should'nt be for cart revenue. Should it? Besides, it has become pretty obvious that these courses that were built to maximize cart revenue, likely built in the timeframe of 83'-now, have designed in their own reasons for failure. Now that's free market capatalism and golf, in a nutshell.

[DMoriarty]

I recently read something about a company which is developing and/or producing small, low impact single person carts for those with health problems and disabilities.  A good idea, it seems to me.  

Tom:  

1.  I've played Kapalua off and on over the last five or six years and have never seen a caddy, except on t.v.  So you are special.  Any bets on whether that caddy had a cart to shuffle you from hole to hole?  Your point was that any course was potentially walkable, and your point is dead wrong, for the two reasons above.

2.  Yes Tom, we've been through it before.  My post wasnt addressed to you, and I did not request your response.  By all means, dont feel compelled to jump in every time I post.  Sit this one out if you like.  

3.  Your point is beside the point.  Those are walkable courses which you choose to ride.  I am talking about unwalkable courses. I dont think I have ever taken a walking only position.   I dont care when or where you choose to ride.  I'd just like a choice to walk.

4.  Tom, you are wrong.  There is land. Architects and developers who want to manage to produce great courses in supposedly golf saturated areas.  New courses in Philly.  Long Island.  Rustic.  Barona.  Many others I am sure.  Almost all the great new courses have been built long after people like you started talking saying that all the land was gone.  You you can have your opinion.  But it is wrong.  

[THuckaby2]

David:

I guess it's just a NorCal thing.  It really seems that every new course that gets built is on severe terrain or in a very outlying area, because all the walkable terrain anywhere near where people live just can't be made into golf courses - it's either gone or prohibitively expensive for such.

So here, I think I'm right.  Nationwide, I could be wrong.

As for the rest, I am suitably chastened.  So where is that hair shirt Mr. Huntley mentioned awhile back?

TH

[Gary_Nelson]

Adam,
I don't see anything unethical about designing a course to maximize revenues.  It's a business so the market will decide if it is fair or not.  I think that a public golf course should be charging what the market will bear for green fees, carts, food/beverage, etc.  

Are you suggesting that golf courses are failing as a business due to bad routings and mandatory carts?  Or did I misread your post?

Similarly, I didn't like having to ante-up $2.75 to rent some smelly old bowling shoes last Sunday but I wasn't given a choice (other than to buy my own).  Maybe this comparison is apples and oranges but the bowling alley got deeper in my pocket which is OK because I paid it.

I do concur with DMoriarity's original point that walking -vs- riding is not a matter of personal preference.  Unfortunately, I believe it is a matter of getting as much money out of your pocket as possible.

[THuckaby2]

I do concur with Dan Moriarity's original point that walking -vs- riding is not a matter of personal preference.  Unfortunately, I believe it is a matter of getting as much money out of your pocket as possible.

But Gary, can you see that at some courses, personal preference is EXACTLY what's involved?  I know that's not what Dave wants to discuss, but it is an interesting subject.  I only brought it up because I'm having difficulty understanding the "if I ride it's not golf" viewpoint.  I guess I shouldn't have done that in this thread, but what the hell.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Of all the courses in my neck of the woods only one has mandatory cart usage and that ends at 4 o'clock, the same hour that those who have to work for a living can get out and play.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of courses force carts upon their patrons or have layouts that discourage walking.
I would guess it's small, perhaps 15%, and regional, like Fla, Myrtle, etc..

[Gary_Nelson]

Tom,

The viewpoint of "if I ride it's not golf" certainly isn't shared by most of my golfing friends.  Riding is the only option for them.  One avid golfer I know balked on a trip to Scotland when I told him he would have to walk.

Most public courses with "walkable routings" here in Metro Detroit would be in financial ruin if they take away the carts and make everyone walk.  The loss of cart revenue would be huge.  But the loss of tee time revenues would be "huge-r".  My opinion is that, given a choice, players would rather ride and would take their business elsewhere.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Adam,
I don't see anything unethical about designing a course to maximize revenues. I do It's a business that's the problemso the market will decide if it is fair or not. and all you're left with are ignorant customers. What a country? think that a public golf course should be charging what the market will bear for green fees, carts, food/beverage, etc. [/b]Pacifc Groves ruination[/b]

Are you suggesting that golf courses are failing as a business due to bad routings and mandatory carts? I hope so Or did I misread your post?

Similarly, I didn't like having to ante-up $2.75 to rent some smelly old bowling shoes last Sunday but I wasn't given a choice (other than to buy my own).  Maybe this comparison is apples and oranges but the bowling alley got deeper in my pocket which is OK because I paid it. The shoes are for the good of the game and the field it's bowled on. What good are carts but to an injured or arithitic golfers? and the bottomline.

I do concur with DMoriarity's original point that walking -vs- riding is not a matter of personal preference.  Unfortunately, I believe it is a matter of getting as much money out of your pocket as possible. My point exactly. Is that golf?

[THuckaby2]

Gary:

Complete concurrence here.  Good lord, for darn near everyone I know outside this forum, it's the other way around:  that is, take out the cart and it's not golf.  That's why although I do prefer to walk myself, I have a hard time understanding the other viewpoint, that with a cart it's not golf.  So many people look at it exactly opposite...

And the revenue issue is very important also, as you rightly state.  

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()