[Dan Herrmann]

I was playing at a Country Club for a Day last year with three friends.  When they got into the cart, they couldn't hold back their joy that there was GPS available.

For every person here on CGA, I'll bet there are 4 or 5 who love the gimmicks, cart golf, GPS, and the like - who don't appreciate the art of golf architecure.

Here's what I think one of my friends would do at Pine Valley.   "What - no carts?  No GPS? Let's go play in Atlantic City."...

[Tom_Doak]

I agree that golf is more fun if the course can be walked, and I try like hell to make all my designs walkable.  However, sometimes, the client has other priorities.  I guess I should just quit those jobs at that point?

If you want to dismiss any course which cannot be walked, you're entitled to that point of view.  You won't rule out very many of the best courses in the world that way, but you will ignore some very good work.

[THuckaby2]

Interesting... but yet another topic that's been covered oodles of times before.  Hey, we all have our personal preferences about this great game.  For some, walking is fundamental to the experience, to different degrees, even to the degree that Dan King takes it - that's it's not golf if one has to ride a cart.  That's cool.  Seems a bit overly zealous to me, as I have had PLENTY of magical golf experiences operating out of a cart, but that's just me:  coming from the other side, where hitting the ball is the fundamental thing, and how one gets to the spot to hit it can add or detract from the experience, but not enough to ruin it or to make it a different game....

So in the end, as often is the case here, it seems to me Tom Doak has the best answer:

"If you want to dismiss any course which cannot be walked, you're entitled to that point of view.  You won't rule out very many of the best courses in the world that way, but you will ignore some very good work."

That ought to be the mantra for this issue.

 

[ForkaB]

Tom

You make a good point.  Obviously the owner of the property often thinks he has a better use for some land than as a golf hole (foolish idea, I know!).  Also, I do not think that anybody on this thread (or this board) will deny that some very great golf can be found on courses which are not completely "joined up"--Kapalua being the most often cited example.  However, the question (for me, at least) is rather how "disjointed" can a golf course be before it becomes just a collection of golf holes and not really a "course" that flows from tee to geen to tee to green, etc. and has a holistic character of its own.  My previous hyperbolic post was just put forward to try to set some parameters for that discussion.

I, personally, have long been in the camp of "the more joined up the better," and have posted so often on this site.  To me, any part of the golfing experience which significantly disrupts the flow and rhythm of the game detracts from the game.  In this big evil pot I would include carts, slow play and golf courses which do not flow from hole to hole, naturally or at least seemingly naturally.

While this may be impossible (or at least very difficult) to do in some situations, I think (recognizing fully that this might be commercially naive) that fighting the good fight for an integrated routing (as Tillinghast suggests in the quote above) would leave us with better golf and a better game, overall, than would capitulation.

[THuckaby2]

Richard:

"The more joined up the better" - for sure, I can live with that.  But here's the $256K question, adjusted for inflation:  should Coore & Crenshaw have turned down the job there, due to the disjointed nature of that property?

Is golf played there, as it is today?

TH

[Mike Hendren]

Heck some guy I know wrote a 500 page book on the subject.  

One is therefore left with this evitable conclusion:

Forrest Richardson is SOME GUY!

Mike

[ForkaB]

Richard:

"The more joined up the better" - for sure, I can live with that.  But here's the $256K question, adjusted for inflation:  should Coore & Crenshaw have turned down the job there, due to the disjointed nature of that property?

Is golf played there, as it is today?

TH

Tom

As to the last question, yes (I assume--never been there), but in a diminished form--sort like playing baseball with designated runners, or for that matter, designated hitters.......  As to the first one, C&C can do whatever they want to with their time.  Maybe they wanted the challenge of doing the best they could on a substandard piece of land.  Maybe they needed the money.  Maybe their wives wanted to spend some time on Hawaii.  I don't know.

An architect should only turn down a job if he (or she) doesn't want to do it, for various valid reasons, including a desire to not compromise whatever design principles they might have.

Cheers

[DMoriarty]

I agree that golf is more fun if the course can be walked, and I try like hell to make all my designs walkable.  However, sometimes, the client has other priorities.  I guess I should just quit those jobs at that point?

A very good point.  It should be far from any of us to presume to tell you what jobs you should and should not take.  

Honestly though, it pains me to hear that the best and the brightest are building cart-ball courses, if only because it provides justification for all those scatterbrain courses being built by those who aren't nearly as good or as bright.   Take CC's Plantation . . . every time this topic comes up, the Plantation banner is raised.   Yet if anything Plantation is much more the exception than the rule.   I know Plantation, have played it many times, and have news for most of those trying to justify cart-ball . . . they arent designing many Plantations.  

So to be blunt, I for one would be very pleased if you and others of your stature would refuse to design any courses requiring carts.   On principle.  It might be good for golf.  

If you want to dismiss any course which cannot be walked, you're entitled to that point of view.  You won't rule out very many of the best courses in the world that way, but you will ignore some very good work.

I wouldnt go so far as to dismiss them, but they all are substantially diminished in my eyes.   This may cause me to ignore some very good work, but just think of all of the mediocre designs I will avoid!

[THuckaby2]

Richard:

"The more joined up the better" - for sure, I can live with that.  But here's the $256K question, adjusted for inflation:  should Coore & Crenshaw have turned down the job there, due to the disjointed nature of that property?

Is golf played there, as it is today?

TH

Tom

As to the last question, yes (I assume--never been there), but in a diminished form--sort like playing baseball with designated runners, or for that matter, designated hitters.......  As to the first one, C&C can do whatever they want to with their time.  Maybe they wanted the challenge of doing the best they could on a substandard piece of land.  Maybe they needed the money.  Maybe their wives wanted to spend some time on Hawaii.  I don't know.

An architect should only turn down a job if he (or she) doesn't want to do it, for various valid reasons, including a desire to not compromise whatever design principles they might have.

Cheers

Well now this all makes very good sense.

But the trump card is this:  magic does happen at Kapalua.  Big time.  It wouldn't for a walking only zealot, but I have a hunch you'd find a way to feel it.

And yes, it is golf.  The degree of diminishment just depends on the beholder.  As for me, I was damn happy to have a cart lest I keel over.

But Dave M. makes great points also... I'm just not sure that golf would be for the better if there was no Kapalua.  So yes, it is the exception to the rule, but if that course never got made due to this principle of not designing courses better played out of carts, well... it wouldn't exist.  A lot of other horrid courses would cease to exist also though... so it's a matter of whether it's worth it to throw this baby out with the bath water.

And it's not the only baby... but yes, there is a lot more bath water.  But as land gets more and more scarce anywhere near urban areas, it just seems new courses get built that are better done out of carts.  Lot's of them suck (The Ranch in San Jose) but some are very good (Cinnabar Hills in San Jose).

This remains a very tough question.  I punt to the idea that more golf is always for the good... so that's where I fall.  But I don't feel to secure in this.

TH

[Kelly Blake Moran]

David,

I agree wholeheartedly that walking is an intergal part of the game.  I think some even mentioned needing carts for French Creek but when I had the pleasure to play there twice I walked and it was reasonable.  Walking adds immense pleasure to the game.

Tom,

I think you need to live up to your big name status and do just as David suggests, refuse those jobs that require carts.  By the way if you wouldn't mind passing along my contact info to those clients I would greatly appreciate it, maybe throw in some used clothes for kids since school is about to start, they need shoes and stuff like that.  Thanks. Your ex-clients can find me at 610/371-8180, or info@kellyblakemoran.com.  Thanks so much.

[George Pazin]

Now THAT was a funny post.

I always like to take time out to agree with Rich - it's golf, but in a greatly diminished form to me. Can't say I think I've ever experienced magic in a golf cart, but I haven't played Kapalua. The cart ball tracks I have played are lesser courses for it.

What great courses would one miss by not playing unwalkable courses? (Please don't be cliche and say Kapalua - can't someone else give one example?)

[THuckaby2]

George:

There are many great courses that work better out of a cart.  Oh, the walking-is-intrinsic-to-the-game folks can still walk any course - just by definition there is no such thing as an unwalkable course - if one can get there by cart, one can walk on the same road - but as you know, some courses would make one VERY tired if one walked.  So we can beat around some semantics, but in the end, it still comes down to what jazzes one about this great game.

I'd say each of these is better played with a cart:

Pasatiempo.  Blasphemy for many, I'm sure, but dammit I've done it both ways many times and it is just too damn hilly and too freakin' tiring to walk.  I do walk there more than ride, but every time I leave there exhausted wishing I had a cart.  I doubt that anyone would call this a "cart-only" course, but hey, you asked....

Either course at MPCC.  Again, neither is the world's worst walk... but one misses nothing playing out of a cart, and suffers less exhaustion.

Just about any course in the state of Colorado.  High altitude, mucho mountains = better done out of cart.  Obviously there are exceptions.

Cabo del Sol Ocean course, Mexico.  Very tough walk, incredibly great course.  Same goes for every other worthwhile course down there near Cabo.

I could go on and on, that's just a sampling off the top of my head of courses this group would have heard of.

And again, please understand that I prefer to walk also.  I'd sooner demand my arm be cut off than demand a cart anywhere in the UK or Ireland.  But those courses are generally built before carts existed, with greens and tees quite close together... so even beyond the affront to the golf gods that using a cart there would be, well... carts aren't necessary basically anywhere over there - thank God.

I've just always been one to say that NOT playing a course because it works better out of a cart is biting off one's nose to spite one's face.  But again, like I say above, I have a different way of looking at golf than those for whom the game doesn't exist without walking.  Fair enough, great big golf world, you know.

TH

ps - full concurrence re KBM's post!

[Mike Benham]

I think we need to break down the walking vs. riding to 2 areas:

a.  between holes
b.  playing the hole

Are the courses that are riding courses that way because of the green-to-tee distances/terrain?

If there was cart service between green and tee, would walking the holes from tee-to-green be doable?

Mike

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

Methinks huge distances from green to tee are what make most courses that have such things better done out of a cart.  But large elevation changes can do the same also.  Take Pasa for example... the only long hike from green to tee is from 9 to 10 really.  But I still think it works better out of a cart, just due to the elevation distance from 2 green up to 12 tee.

But it could be just that I am old and fat and tired.  

Our local fave Cinnabar Hills is like Pasa in this respect - definitely walkable, as many here (including me) have proven... but only at risk of much greater exhaustion, much more time taken and thus less enjoyment.  And this is due in equal measures to green to tee hikes and large elevation changes. I think the strident walker would skip this course, which would be too bad, because there is a lot of greatness there to be seen.

TH

[George Pazin]

There is a GIGANTIC difference to me between tough to walk and unwalkable.

I walked Black Mesa and Paa Ko last fall and didn't think either was even close to being unwalkable. Tough walks, yes, but I'd still rather walk 'em than ride 'em - to me, it's that important.

I've played other courses with long long rides from green to tee that I can't imagine being magical to me.

To me:

Tough walk - questionable routing - maybe good, maybe bad, depends on the result of the holes.

Unwalkable - bad routing. Maybe it's the architect's fault, maybe it's the owner/developer. Who knows, who cares.

[THuckaby2]

George:

Well, to those who take this far enough, "unwalkable" doesn't exist.  Hey, I'm with you - I have seen several courses that I'd consider "unwalkable", but one right off the top of my head has been walked by some idiots, er, check that, guys who prefer to walk.    It's called Pasadera, in Monterey, CA.  But I'd stretch things considerably to call it "great".  Pretty good works, though.

But this does make it a tougher question.  Of course the poster child for this is indeed Kapalua Plantation, but I'd never stoop such a trite mention.  BUT... someone familiar with Colorado can likely come up with another... and those down in Cabo sure merit "unwalkable" for me also....

So as I say, this could just come down to semantics, how one defines the terms.  If I am in a foul enough mood I sure could call Pasatiempo unwalkable.  But obviously Dan King and several others would never agree with that!

TH

[George Pazin]

For me, unwalkable refers to long rides from green to tee, not severe terrain. Black Mesa and Paa Ko were severe, but not at all unwalkable. A course with long rides between one green and the following tee is unwalkable - and almost not enjoyable for me.

Maybe if I were riding in a cart with Salma or Nicole Kidman, good - otherwise bad.

[THuckaby2]

George:  well again, that's your definition.  Methinks you need to see some mountain golf before you get too set in this, however.  I;d also love to take you to Cinnabar Hills in San Jose, where green to tee distance isn't bad, but tee to fairway distance is often horrible and makes for a very tiring walk (think down a valley and up the other side, many times).

Black Mesa wasn't a bad walk at all, agreed.  That being said, I sure as hell didn't turn down the cart for the 2nd round.

 

[ForkaB]

Huck

Time for a fitness regime.  I'm older and fatter than you and I can walk Cinnabar Hills.  And, the tee to green ups and downs are no worse than many Ross gems.

BTW--glad to see that you've finally come around to my point of view on that course.

As to the point at hand, as George says, the problem is obviously the between hole distances/disconnects.  That's what breaks up the flow of the course and the continuity of the game.  That's what makes a track just a collection of golf holes and not a course.

[DMoriarty]

Tom, given that you have repeatedly expressed your ambivalence regarding walking versus riding, I really dont think you are in a position to act as arbiter.  Pasa?  You've got to be kidding me.  A pleasure to walk.  I havent played the new course at Monterey, but the old Shore and the Dunes were/are very pleasurable walks.   Perhaps your picks say more about your current physical condition than the walkability of the courses.  If a fat-ass like me would prefer to walk them, surely a svelt young man such as yourself should have no trouble.  

As for your Colorado speculation, I've never played there.   But between Montana and New Mexico, I have played a number of walkable courses at elevation.   I dont know the elevation of the courses, but I know that Santa Fe NM is around 7000 ft. and the courses I've played there or near are all walking courses.

[ian]

Kelly,

"Your ex-clients can find me at 610/371-8180, or info@kellyblakemoran.com"

Are you paying Ran for the advetising?

I thought I'd give you another plug!





Highland Golf links is the longest walk I can remember on a course. The terrain involves much climbing and decending, but it still remains remarkably walkable. Thompson's genius was to use a series of holes to climb or decend, rather than a cart path that takes you to the next elevated tee.

Capilano is a remarkably walkable course on a very steep and difficult piece of property. Thompson used a couple of holes running parallel to the mountain to break the climb and the descent at key points. These seem to break the crushing climb into managaable stages.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ian,

Are you talking about Highland in London?!?! You're description distinctly makes me think of HIGHLANDS LINKS  

As for Capilano, I agree. Give any one of a group of contemporary Canadian golf architects that raw Capilano site, and I'd bet the course wouldn't match up to Thompson's remarkably genius, amazingly walkable layout.  

Sadly, what it would be is, a testament to his so-called "family tree" up here in Canada. [Sorry.]

[THuckaby2]

David/Rich:

Aw hell, you guys are probably right.  I am just feeling old and tired and walking for the sake of walking, at courses that just leave me a whole hell of a lot less exhausted if I take a cart, seems to make more sense than ever.  And whereas I'll never understand how the magical game I experienced at Kapalua is not golf, and how the awful crap I've experienced during very easy walks at places like San Jose muni IS golf and thus is somehow better... well... the most transcendent moments do occur whilst walking.

And Rich, congrats on finally coming around to MY way of thinking about Cinnabar.

 

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Doak writes:
However, sometimes, the client has other priorities.  I guess I should just quit those jobs at that point?

I can't speak for you, but I would have. But then I'm independently wealthy and never consider money when making any decisions in life.

Tom Huckaby writes:
For some, walking is fundamental to the experience, to different degrees, even to the degree that Dan King takes it - that's it's not golf if one has to ride a cart.

I'm no where near as militant as I used to be. I've been known to play rounds of cart-ball. The topic came up because some believe you can have a good routing that isn't walkable. I disagreed. I don't think unwalkable courses can hold their heads up in polite society. As others have said the flow of the course is ruined by riding endless cartpaths between holes. Wouldn't flow be an important function of routing?

So why not one of you are cart-ball fans explain how you can do a good routing job on a cart-ball course?

coming from the other side, where hitting the ball is the fundamental thing, and how one gets to the spot to hit it can add or detract from the experience, but not enough to ruin it or to make it a different game....

Tom, I think you have gotten closer to understanding the game of golf over the years I've known you. I believe someday you will understand the beauty of the game and take it way beyond the shots. Give it time, the experience will come.

should Coore & Crenshaw have turned down the job there, due to the disjointed nature of that property?

It's been years since I played the Plantation. I'll need to grab some money out of one of my buckets of dough and go check it out again. I'm not 100 percent positive a walkable course couldn't have been designed on that site. The site is walkable, so why couldn't the course be walkable? Are the forced hikes really necessary, or could a few between holes have worked to get to the existing holes?

But since you asked, yes if Coore and Crenshaw had asked my advice I would have told them to turn down the job if they couldn't make the course walkable.

Should they take jobs that can't end in golf holes but are required to end at a clown's mouth? Should architects have principles or just work for the highest bidder?

I'm not saying architects must have the same principles as myself, but if they believe in golf as a game played on foot they should turn down jobs to build cart-ball courses.

Dan King

Ye're makin' a great mistake if ye think the gemme is meant for the shots. The gemme is meant for walkin'.
 --Shivas Irons (Golf in the Kingdom)

[Doug Siebert]

And again, please understand that I prefer to walk also.  I'd sooner demand my arm be cut off than demand a cart anywhere in the UK or Ireland.  But those courses are generally built before carts existed, with greens and tees quite close together... so even beyond the affront to the golf gods that using a cart there would be, well... carts aren't necessary basically anywhere over there - thank God.

Would that this were true, but when I was in Ireland a bit over a month ago, many of the courses had carts.  Even, blasphemy of blashphemies -- BALLYBUNION!  Oh, not on the Old yet, they just started it on June 24th on the Cashen, and after talking to the pro a bit after the round I found out it was an experiment to see how it goes as far as damage to the grasses before considering them on the Old.  But it sure sounds like they are down that round and Old Ballybunion will have carts in a few years.  At this rate I wouldn't be surprised to see the Links Trust permit them on the New, Eden and Jubilee, and keep only the Old Course pure.  There would be open revolt if they permitted carts on that hallowed ground!  Not to mention needing tractors to tow them out of hidden pot bunkers people drove them into when not looking where they were going

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()