Comments made by Doug Siebert on another thread got me thinking about the best golf courses.  Doug wrote that some places have a lot of land available so they more or less use it to build the best course.  As a fan of walking and therefore economy of design I am not terribly enamoured with even moderate walks of 50 yards or so from tee to green.  These walks detract immensely from the pleasure of the game.  Having just been in NC it was obvious to me that Old Town and Southern Pines were more enjoyable than a few of the newer courses I played and this was in no small measure due to the economy of design.  Old Town does have a hiccup in that the player needs to cross the parking lot (probably one of the worst types of walks conceivable) after 3 holes - a walk of 60 yards or so, its not clever, but it does get the player to the meat of the course.  Even so, it leaves a bit of bad taste in my mouth.  I have always held that if a walk is going to be involved the hole had better be special or allow for the creation of a very cool section of the course.  Anymore than one or possibly two of these walks would eventually grate on me until it eventually becomes a deal breaker issue.  Tobacco Road is a perfect example (and the only tough walk I have played that impressed me as much of some classic courses), I love the course but would never consider joining a course like this or playing it often because of the walk.  I know it would drive me insane after several plays as a local or member.  

How do people feel about the proliferation of cart courses/tough walks and are they generally good or bad for the game?  Are there any terrible walks out there that can be overlooked because of the quality of the course?  I realize that economy of design is a relative issue given vastly different terrain, but I tend to side with the idea of "I'm not bothered if it can't be walked".  Do folks discount the quality of design because of walking issues?

Ciao

Do folks discount the quality of design because of walking issues?

Yes  A break in rhythm is a nasty thing to overcome, sometimes a course never recovers.  

Halfway houses, the american definition of "the turn" with its inevitable back up, 50-400 yard walks, even the lovely cartgirl all affect the design as the routing and flow suffers. Disruption of flow, that's what stinks.

For a course where walking is necessary there is generally little to no excuse to route the course with long walks between greens and tees, in my opinion. That in fact is perhaps the first requirement of the routing process.

But as an example, take Sand Hills. That golf course is apparently routing over 500+ acres but nevertheless the green to next tee commutes are all pretty tight, even if the space between the holes themselves can get fairly immense.

Sean,

I'm with you on Tobacco Road. Since it's just far enough away that at most I can get one or two rounds a year there I can forgive its sprawling layout because so many of the holes are one of a kind. So it's one of my favorite courses to visit but wouldn't make the top twenty in courses I'd like to play every day.

One factor you left out when talking about different types of walks is the possibility of a very special longish walk. Crossing the road from fourteen to fifteen at Cypress Point isn't ideal from a distance standpoint but given that the final part of it is through that little tunnel of trees and the road itself overlooks the ocean, I wouldn't complain if it were twice as far. Sort of the opposite of crossing a parking lot.

I guess when it comes to the Big World of golf courses, I have a couple of fundamental limitations...

1 ) I can't evaluate how good a course is for a +2 handicapper who hits the ball 275 yards in the air because I'm not a very good player nor do I hit the ball very far.

2) I can't seriously consider a course to be a great one if it has to be played in a cart or if the walk is interrupted by several atrocious long gaps in the routing. In fact, it's highly doubtful that I'd ever consider a cart-ball course good enough to be worth playing more than once or twice.

We all have our biases and limitations of perspective. For some people if a course isn't 7,000+ yards and tough enough to host a major championship then it's not worthy of serious consideration. For others of us, a course only matters in as much as it's fun and pleasant to play afoot.

Interesting you all (49% Dixie) use TR as the prime example for this conversation...Royal New Kent is the only Mike Strantz course I have played, and I loved it but have to view it different than most golf courses. I can partially excuse the unbelievably long walks because each hole is fun and something different from anything else I've ever seen....that being said, I would not want a steady diet and do not mind the fact that I will likely never play there again after having played a four round tournament there for three consecutive years plus a practice round or two.

For me, it's not so much the "architecture" that sticks with me over time...it's the total experience...Conditioning being right near the top of the list of factors...

There are two reasons which I have seen for the long walks and resulting need for carts.  One is the fact that many courses are being built as part of housing developments so acreage for houses as well as roads and other infrastructure requirements cause the need for the long walks.  The other is that the land being used for new construction often involves wetlands and other areas that require preservation so the routing requires a significant distance from a green to the next tee.

I would like to suggest that many of the classical courses were routed so that when one left a green you would then be routed to the back tees of the next hole and walk forward if you were playing a different tee.  This became rather dramatic with RTJ's runway teeing ground and the long walks from the championship tees to the forward tees. Many of the classcial courses have been "stretched" and the result is the forced walk back to the championship tees.

I must say that I have noticed with many new courses that the routing is geared to the member or usual player, and the player who is using the back tees must walk back to his teeing ground.  Part of this is can be because of the nature of the property such as when the course is on the side of a mountain, etc.  

Sean:

Allow me to make one other point that I have found to be quite common: It has been my experience that most architects design courses from the championship tees forward.  By that I mean that very often features of a hole can be viewed only from the championship tees and unless one walks back there, it is hard to see the best line of play and preferred shot type from a forward tee. When I was a rater, I made it a point to walk back to the championship tees to view the hole even if I was playing from a forward tee.

Well well well..We certainly have come full circle.

Back when this web site was an infant the argument was that a golf course wasn't a golf course unless it was walkable. (save for Kapalua's Plantation) The term was "cartball" to dstinguish between what was worthy and what wasn't.

I believe the length of a walkus interuptus was irrelavent if the setting was akin to the walk from 15th green to 16 tee at CPC, or one of the long walks at Thompson's Breton Highlands. (not looking at some billionaires new ocean side mansion, Huck)

Good to see we can Americanize every aspect sacred to the ideal.

Adam,

I know it sounds like I'm trying to pick on you lately but I'm not. Honest.

But isn't it possible that this forum is actually more useful when it encompasses a wider view of the game rather than being a Keeper of the Flame for one very particular set of preferences and biases?

My own P&B's align pretty darned closely with yours, I suspect. But I think it admits more perspicacious commentary here if the prevailing view is "A walkable course is by definition superior to a cartball course because walking is a traditional element of the game" rather than "The game as played on a non-walkable course isn't golf at all and therefore such courses should be dismissed out of hand".

I wasn't really making a free-speech argument. My take on it is that it's entirely possible that a "cartball" course could have features that are interesting and educational to discuss. If a course like that is right out then we might miss something worthwhile.

For my two cents...

I think it is fine to make the back/back tees a little bit of a hike. There is a nice bit of intrigue and mystery if the tee is not readily visible and has a path that only the "big boys" should trod.