I suppose I've tipped my hand by labeling myself a militant walker, but I believe creating walking-oriented courses is at the heart of whatever renaissance is going on in golf course architecture these days.  For all the brilliance of the architectural features created or incorporated by Mr. Doak and other like-minded architects, their greatest contribution to the game may be in building courses that encourage walking.  

Golf should be a sport, not a car ride.  Cart-ball destroys the continuity and flow of a round.  I live in Colorado where many mountain courses effectively can't be walked.  Some of these courses are very enjoyable, but it doesn't feel quite like golf.  It's amusement park golf and I fear Mr. Engh may be perpetuating that.  Too often these courses are as Mike Cirba suggested--drive up a hill, hit from an elevated tee and drive to the next hole for more of the same.  It's for this reason that I prefer the less scenic, but more walkable courses in the Denver area.  

I realize not every property lends itself well to a walking course (but, as suggested, perhaps these sites should not be made into golf courses), but there's too much laziness--lazy golfers and perhaps "lazy" architects.  With some effort, golf can be more of a walking game in the U.S.  Who's with me?  No nukes!  Save the whales!  Stick it to the Man!  

I will say that I love to walk but Engh's Blackrock would require an expedition!  Just the immigration problems of getting the sherpas and elephants here would be difficult!  

While Blackrock is nearly unwalkable it is spectacular to look at.  The routing is dynamic but I am concerned with his treatment of the green surrounds.  They border on claustrophobic.  Many of the greens are enclosed by steep hillsides where chipping could cause vertigo, always downhill.  

Is this typical of his other courses or is Blackrock unique?

What's so amusing and downright laughable is that so few people have played a representative sampling of Jim Engh's golf designs but seem able -- and often times dogmatic -- to proclaim what he's failed to with what he has created.

Hello guys -- wake up please !!!

How bout a bit of due diligence besides the weighing in with just one personal observation and left field cheap seats opinions?

I have played roughly a dozen of Engh's designs and minus a mere handful the rest can be walked. I am impressed by a good number of the courses he has designed -- from the private exclusive side to those available to the public. His recent work at Pradera and Lakota Canyon are two wonderful layouts and both can be walked if one opted to do so.

The idea that golf is somehow caving in and will only produce just cartball golf courses is silly. The desire to balance ride-only players and those who prefer to walk seems to be where things are heading. The so-called exclusive private courses are even seeing fit to have only walking courses which is just fine.

Jim Engh has had some very difficult sites to handle. In those cases -- Black Rock and Sanctuary -- come quickly to mind --it's imperative that players do ride. Does that undercut the architecture? I guess that depends upon one's particular view.

I have said this over and over again -- for those who's ears are somewhat open -- that if the cart ride becomes the dominant ingredient to playing the course than it does take away from the overall time spent there. Does that then mean the golf course should be trashed as something less than pure and saintly? I don't think so -- I would just place it in some form of context and go from there.

I make it a point to assess not only the individual holes but the actual flow between them and to see if the pacing / routing is indeed at a complex level. Jim Engh understands that and as any good architect and among his best designs you get a high level of fun and anticipation to play it again and again.

At the end of the day -- the fun meter is what keeps players interested and as I said before -- a number of his designs have done that very well.

I am, more or less, in agreement with Mr. Huckaby.  I have played an Engh course (Matt, can we agree on the deficiencies of Red Hawk Ridge--ridiculously short par 5s, over-reliance on elevated tees, perhaps not enough land to work with?), but I haven't played enough to judge his work as a whole.  I haven't played them, but virtually everyone praises Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon; reactions to Fossil Trace vary--it doesn't look like my cup of tea, too gimmicky.

I'm not really criticizing Engh's work, more his attitude.  I value the natural aspects of golf, i.e., the use of natural features, the time spent walking in a relatively pristine, natural environment.  I don't think I'm alone in this.  For Engh to say (apparently) that he pays no attention to routing a course so that it can be walked seems like an abdication of some of his responsibilities as an architect.  Not everyone feels this way, obviously, but it's a personal affront to me.

Where I disagree with Mr. Huckaby is when he says that a cart-ball course is better than no course at all.  We have enough golf courses in this country and courses, especially cement-ridden ones, can spoil the natural environment (the Rocky Mountains, for example, are pretty nice in themselves).  What we need is better, more inspired courses, particularly ones that are publicly accessible.  

Tom

I think new walkable courses will be left to the realm of munis, some publics, very few,if any, resorts and the non-residential privates. Even at some older clubs in the Philly area good caddie programs are hard to find and walk/carry is only an option after 2 or 3 pm in season. None,except Hidden Creek,permit the use "power caddies."

I will try to play Engh's new private in AZ- Blackstone- on my next visit and see how walkable it is. I played Lakota and Pradera in CO last summer and took a cart both times. I know Lakota would not be walkable but Pradera may be.

Steve

Tom, I can appreciate your perspective.  Mine is colored by my location as well.  In Colorado, you have a lot of people in their 20s and 30s who regard golf as an old man's game.  They want to enjoy the fresh air, get some exercise and spend some time away from civilization.  I think these people would be more drawn to golf if it offered those things.  Cart-ball does not.  As the suburbs and exurbs grow and we lose open space, we need fewer paved areas, not more.  

We don't have a huge problem with tee times.  In the 10 years that I've lived here, it's never been easier to get a tee time than right now.  If only Ballyneal were public and closer to Denver!  

I was with a large group of guys at my own bachelor party, so I didn't think it would be too cool to make others walk when they were paying my way. I won't walk it next time, either, because there won't be a next time. Hopefully.

George,

What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.  

Cary:

That's a tough one.  You do make a great point that Engh has succeeded in making enjoyable courses out of sites that weren't being used for much before (I assume).  But Tim as a Coloradoan might disagree with that.

BUT... even if this is true, does it outweigh the issue I am more concerned with, that is, that I'd rather celebrate affordable walkables?

As I say it is a tough call.  And I am far far from certain on this - any opinions/guidance/points of view would be interesting to me.

TH

Tom:

If you only like affordable walkables, then you should only them those. I think there is more to celebrate out there than just one type.

If you say, my strong preference is for affordable walkables, but I can still enjoy other courses of different elks, then you will have expanded your horizons and could possibly enjoy another array of courses as I do

I don't deny the pleasure of throwing a Sunday bag over your shoulder and walking with your buddies 18 holes. I did that for 40 years, but there is a whole other world out there.

Tim:

Engh is designing 9 holes at Carne for walkers. Engh's work is site dependent.

Shadow Creek was a wonder when it was done and opened up dead flat nothing sites to the developer and golf to enjoy. That makes it special. Ditto with Whistling Straits. It is, IMO, Pete Dye's best work, for he created what only nature could create heretofore.

If I were an architect, I would nominate those 2 courses for the Hall of Fame in that architect's can point to those courses as examples of where they can push the envelope and succeed.

Engh's work at Santuary was done on a site that 4 other architects turned down as not buildable, and he is now creating for us playable golf courses in areas that nature has given us unusable masterpieces.

Cary, we're starting to go around and around on this, but let me try to make my point better.  It's great that Engh is designing a walking course in Carne (is there any other kind in Ireland?), but I live in the U.S., and I'd like to see more walking courses here.

I think Tom Doak made a great point when he talked about the fact that he was making an effort to ensure that his course in Montana is walkable.  This is something I think all architects should consider.  The article made it sound like Engh was saying he had no obligation to do this because "90%" of golfers take a cart anyway.  If true, I think it's regrettable because Engh is talented and I'd like to see that talent more focused on creating walkable golf courses, not just on creating golf holes.  

This is a interesting discussion, if only to see how many times TomH can post about an Architect whose courses he has never played.  I've only played one Engh course, Black Rock.  My comments below are limited to Black Rock.

After reading the excerpts, I cant say I like Black Rock any better, but I think I do understand it better.   It seems that many of the features I disliked at Black Rock probably fit in quite nicely with what Jim Engh apparently calls the 'the golf cart-path experience.'

For example, despite the beautiful and panoramic Idaho scenery nearly all the golf holes are sunken into troughs so that one can rarely see much outside that particular playing corridor.   And has been said above on here, the greensites are clausterphobic;  surrounding by large mounds or banks on three sides.   The property itself is convex but the course is concave.  

But now that I think about it, the tee boxes and cart paths are largely on top of the surrounding berms and banks.  From the cart paths and elevated tees, one can take in some very nice views, which just arent visible from the course itself.   The holes are quite visible from the paths, however, and I assume that this is what he means when he says that "he is sure to highlight views of the course."  

Now in my opinion a golf course should be designed for golfing and not to look good from a cart path.  To me the views that matter are those that intertwine with the actual golfing experience, as should the native landscape.  But apparently I am becoming a minority in holding onto this once common view.  

One more critique of Engh's design strategy, I wonder if it wouldnt a more effective approach if it was "the golf cart-path only experience."  If the course is built to be seen from the cart paths, then why not make sure the players dont miss a thing.


____________

Onto the walking issue.

On a plus side, I am glad to see an honest admission by Engh that he is completely excluding any consideration for walkers in his designs.   I've battled with an esteemed poster here about the walkability of Black Rock, and the Engh excerpts at Black Rock certainly put its supposed walkability in proper persective.  

On the minus side, I am surprised to see how many people have absolutely no problem with riding-only designs.   It is not a question of "to each his own,"  because the option of walking is taken away by such designs.   How can you raters heap accolades on a course which slams the door on such a core segment of the golfing world?  

My hat is off to Matt Ward for being in such good shape to be able to walk Pradera.  Getting from 15 green to 16 tee gave me a bloody nose due to the elevation change.  It reminded me of the drive to Pikes Peak.  Once I arrived I nearly passed out from lack of oxygen. From what I have seen Mr. Engh designs quality golf holes with interesting options.  

Andy:

Well this is the question I've been trying to get at for several pages now:  are things SO far gone that this "fight" is not worth having any more?  Should we really just punt, throw up our hands, and go ahead and celebrate cart-ball?

I can't believe it's gotten that bad.  The game simply must still be PRIMARILY a walking game... at least in intent.

No?

TH