Tom,
  I would never say its worth giving up the fight, if nothing else courses can and I dare say should be designed to be as walkable as possible.
  With that said...most people probably disagree with your statement that golf is PRIMARILY a walking game. At my home course in Indiana, which is pretty hilly but otherwise not that hard to walk, I don't think I ever see anybody else attempt it but me. This is especially true at public venues, I think private clubs have a better chance of keeping walking in mind.

Tom,
  Certainly, its pretty hard to argue that walking is at the core of the game, and I pretty well agree with your general principles. The game is too expensive, and carts add to the problem. My struggle is that of the courses I've played, a lot of the ones I really like are pretty darn tough to walk. I completely agree that it would be pretty awful if all courses were this way, I guess I don't mind having some of them when it comes down to it.

I think Lakota Canyon is $75 for a non Colorado resident including cart....that's quite affordable

Re: the walking issues, I have nothing more to contribute but to repeat myself, and out of fear of being institutionalized, enough said.

TomH.  I was kidding.  I even broke down and used a smiley.

Andy and TomH, from the Engh snippets this is about much more than Carts or No Carts.   Unless I am reading him wrong, not only has he discarded walking and spacial continuity between holes, he is also designing courses based on the views from the cart paths!

Fazio once explained his framing by noting something like that the tee(s) are the one place where all the golfers had the same view and that the architect can actually control the perspective of the golfer, and that he designed holes based on the golfer's perspective from the tee. Engh appears to be expanding on this notion-- he is designing based on the golfer's perspective from the cart path.  

Quick question....

Does Engh's designs revolve around the whole cart path thing, or does he just give the cart paths consideration in his designs?

Joe

This is a really great arguement.  It started off as a critique of someone's work and the quote attributed to him and got back to a pet subject of the group...walking v. riding.  Quite frankly, Jim Engh is correct, in what our numbers show us in terms of rides v walks.

Do I personally walk and enjoy it; yes. Does our customer/client/member... 90% don't.  They prefer to play cart ball and have the beverage cart girl come around with cold refreshments.  They are the customer (and hopefully a repeat one, and we try to supply what that customer base prefers.

There was one comment farther back from an owner running a course in Michigan.  The group really didn't want to listen to someone who is earning their livelyhood actually running a golf course.  And you wonder why (as spoken about earlier this week) interested parties in the buiness drop off.

I think that we would be wise, as a group, to take this post seriously.

-Ted

Bruce,

I think whether people walk has much to do with the course.   Joe Hancock posted that around 65% of his golfers ride.  This leaves 35% who dont and I would think that 35% is worth considering.  

At the course I play most often they say 25-30% walk, but I am guessing it is more like 20%.  At Rancho Park, an old muni which was built for walking, my guess is that at least 50% walk.  

Make walking easy and available and give a little incentive and I think more people would walk.  At Bandon none of those courses are easy walks, and they are booked full of people traveling from a long ways away to walk.

I took Joe Hancock quite seriously in his assessment of the situation. Still, this is a group that values continuity with the game as it has been played for over a century. We talk about things like the desirability of strategic width, playability for all levels of golfers, making courses appear to be of a piece with the surrounding landforms and responsible, lean maintenance.

Given that set of desiradata nobody should be surprised that a statement to the effect that the experience of cart riders is the predominant factor in modern courses is something to be utterly cryit doune, and nocht useit!

To paraphrase something I read once...

Americans, by and large, believe that any activity worth doing in the first place can be improved by the addition of an internal combustion engine. Golf is no exception.

There is a substantial proportion of the golfing population who will only play the game if they can use a cart. It would not be rational or reasonable to somehow refuse to let them indulge that desire. What would be very shortsided would be to evolve the game away from indulging the rest of us in the equally reasonable and much longer-standing desire to play the game afoot.

There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of American golf courses being rendered unavailable to cart riders. I'm afraid that I do see a chance within my lifetime (assuming I live another 50 years or so) that the industry would make playing the game without a cart some sort of niche behavior that is not widely practicable. That would be a hell of a thing.

Just played Engh's Blackstone GC in Peoria, Ariz., west of Phoenix. Easily walkable. The land is rather low profile, which leads me to believe that Engh derived his approach to carts and riding on the basis of extreme Western mountainous sites, but as soon as he gets a flatter one he's able to do a course that's amenable to walking as well. In fact the private club is encouraging walking, whether carrying your own or one of those high-tech pullcarts. So it turns out Engh doesn't organize his design around riding and cart paths, but he is able to make his courses usable and enjoyable for those (in the majority) who do ride.

So it turns out Engh doesn't organize his design around riding and cart paths, but he is able to make his courses usable and enjoyable for those (in the majority) who do ride.

Thank goodness there's a maverick out there working to make courses useable for carts.

I think the cart issue and owners staying in business is very serious indeed.  Before I left Ann Arbor in 1998 it was starting to become very difficult to find decent, affordable (under $30 at the time) public courses which allowed walking on the weekend.  These were courses which were all easily walkable.  Many designed before the cart ruled the green.  

At least half the courses we considered each week were municipals or county/state operated courses.  These were the majority of courses which allowed walking on weekends.  The privately owned public courses tended not to allow walking on weekends.  

I don't know if the trend has gone back to customer choice due to the downturn in Michigan golf.  Most newer designs I come across are not nearly as walker friendly.  I think this is due to difficult terrain and where terrain doesn't appear to be an issue owners prefering carts be used because of the additional income.  Now that cartball has become so prevalent I wonder if owners see carts as "additional" income.  I am guessing that many new courses project a certain percentage of cart profit to make the operation viable.

It would be interesting to know how much green fees would have to rise if carts were not in use.  I think in Michigan this additional hike in green fees would be disastrous for many courses.  The competition at all levels of price range is very tight.  I seem to recall people talking of several course closures in Michigan the past few years.

Ciao

Sean

Joe

In your part of the world, how much do you reckon green fees would rise if carts weren't in use?

Ciao

Sean