NASCAR golf?

Bogey, I suppose it could be the out-of-context effect, but, the flaw in Mr. Engh's logic lies in one's inability to absorb a golf course, or a golf hole, from the back of a buggy.

The ability to experience everything is magnified exponentially as one walks.

Creating interesting holes, that stand on thier own,  proliferates the scorecard mentality in rating courses, too.  

Showing little respect for key intangibles such as routing & flow.

Also, this only leads to courses that are a collection of 18 good-great holes.

 So, I vote for the Collection era.

Adam,

His point seems to be that for many courses nobody is out there absorbing the course afoot anyway.

I have no problem imagining that the set of contraints imposed by building a perfect walking course conflict with the set of contraints imposed by building a course that is as good as it can possibly be for the guy in a cart on the cart paths.

Keep in mind that just as the majority of golfers ride (at least in my neck of the woods) and awful big proportion of those riding rounds are under a cart-paths-only restriction. I think Engh is saying that if he has to choose between a hole that the guy on the cart path can't enjoy vs. a hole that the guy walking down the middle of the fairway misses out on...he is going to side with the carts. I think that's a valid business model.

Having said all that, here's the kicker...

Once you declare that walking doesn't matter, the sky's the limit. If you want to spread your 18 holes out over 400 acres of housing development, a good architect can probably build 18 nice-looking holes (from the cart path) that use the most attractive and easy-to-build-on parts of the property. I think his "90% of golfers" exaggeration is ultimately self-serving and may be more of a rationalization than a starting principle.

 What happens when energy costs go through the roof ?


   I know in our area that certain courses will fall off the play list if cart fees skyrocket.


   

Brent, I have no problem with the business model. What I do have a problem with are people who espouse that these riding only courses are the epitome of quality G.C. designs.
If "the industry" wants to use the commercially accepted as a measure of quality, so be it. I, for one, will not be swayed in accepting this. Ever.

If "the industry" wants to use the commercially accepted as a measure of quality, so be it. I, for one, will not be swayed in accepting this. Ever.

I'm with you, Adam. There are many, many golfers for whom the design of the golf course as experienced in a cart matters and what it's like afoot matters not at all. So ask them about good golf courses and it's likely their answer will be very different than mine. Same thing applies to those who (as Jeff Warne puts it) answer any inquiry about a golf course by telling you what score they shot and whether the greens were fast and smooth.

But if you ask me whether a course is any good or not, I guarantee my answer won't take into account what the views were like from the cart path.

So does he change this philosophy when designing in Ireland? I would say 5% of people use carts over here.

The proof of Jim Engh's success comes with the golf courses he has produced. Albeit much of it is in the mountain time zone and likely few people on GCA or elsewhere have played more than just one or two at best.

Keep firmly in mind, that many of the key sites he has worked are on very severe terrain and I can see where his comments would tie with that.

I have had the opportunity to play about a dozen of his designs and while they are always entertaining they are not always rock solid. Jim does get a bit "creative" with mounding, green contours and the like -- but to his vast credit he does accentuate the "fun" elements in his work and most golfers will never ascribe the word "boring" to his work.

Frankly, I am not a huge fan of Sanctuary in Sedalia, CO which often gets mega reviews because of the unique site and the manner by which Engh overcame the severity of the property.

I frankly think Sanctuary is no where near as good as recent efforts such as Pradera in Parker, CO and Lakota Canyon Ranch in New Castle, CO. Both are tremendously fun to play and clearly are intertwined with what Mother Nature provided.

It will be interesting see how Jim does with other locations such as Reyonolds Plantation and the work at Carne in Ireland.

I hope to play Blackstone in AZ sometime later this spring.

All in all, Engh is the flipside of the classical preferred architect that many are inclined to prefer here on GCA.

Matt,

What about carts?

Do you, in determining your preferences, believe that a course that is so intimate as to be walkable is by definition better on that count than one where cart rides, long and short, are mandatory and necessary to traverse the course?

I've yet to play one of Jim's courses, but from the description I'm imagining something where there is no real continuity from green to next tee, but instead an effort to find the next dramatic landscape, set a tee high atop it, and created 18 segmented, unconnected visual treats than something where you have a sense of interconnected place.

Please tell me my impressions are incorrect.  

Huck,

The real elephant in this room is that cost is absolutely no factor whatsoever for 90% of the treehouse.  Let's face it, just about everybody is loaded.

Mike

I agree with the AwShuckster (tm) about the elephant in the room. I'm perfectly happy thriving in a culture here that values walkable, intimately routed courses. But I'm also perfectly happy admitting that we're a bunch of elitist curmudgeons by the standards of the larger golf culture here in the USA.

Mike:

I have stated before that I don't find carts so objectionable as many do here. They are necessary for a whole host of reasons. I have said that if cart rides become the DOMINANT aspect of the time spent playing a course than they have too much of a role and detract from the experience when playing.

I always enjoy walking but keep this in mind -- the sites many architects face today are very challenging and often include housing into the mixture. Many of these new layouts are trying to preserve walking and that's great. However, I don't put a black mark against courses simply because carts are part and parcel in playing them. Provided the cart rides don't become soooooooo excessive between holes and the like.

Mike -- before assuming that Jim doesn't understand sound golf design I would ask that you play his courses before making or contemplating any firm conclusion. I've played a dozen -- likely more than any one else here on GCA. I believe his work is often fun and rarely boring. He does have to deal with some of the most demanding land / grade changes and with that comes some daring moments that can work at times and at other times much less so.

In sum -- your impressions, from my point of view, are not correct. In fact, one can very easily walk the likes of Pradera and Lakota Canyon if one opted to do so.