Jim Engh Shoots Straight

[Andy Troeger]

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 Huckaby]

Andy:

I have no doubt that the vast majority of golfers today do consider golf a riding game.

That's the whole problem.

Because you have to agree that the core root of golf, the soul of the game, how it's really MEANT to be played, is walking.

Right?

And if that's the case, then well... should we just give up and concede to the majority - as Engh is - or do we keep up the fight?

Maybe the war is over.  Maybe it's not worth the trouble.  I really used to think this myself, not all that long ago.  Live and let live, great big world of golf, what's the harm in cartball, etc.

But then it dawned on me how too damn expensive the game is... how we are losing its soul in so many ways...

I just felt like I ought to join the fight.

And my belief is that voting with my feet isn't going to make much difference - working to change attitudes will.

Does that make any sense at all?

TH

[Andy Troeger]

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.

[Tom Huckaby]

Andy:

I too am of the mind that some cartball courses are fine - I stated earlier in this thread that some make for great golf, and at least in places like where I live where player per course per capita is so high and tee times are so hard to obtain, hell any course is better than no course.  In other areas it doesn't work out that way.  In any event, the question isn't if they should exist, but if they should be praised and celebrated and encouraged.  THAT is what I am having a hard time with.  

[cary lichtenstein]

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.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy:

I too am of the mind that some cartball courses are fine - I stated earlier in this thread that some make for great golf, and at least in places like where I live where player per course per capita is so high and tee times are so hard to obtain, hell any course is better than no course.  In other areas it doesn't work out that way.  In any event, the question isn't if they should exist, but if they should be praised and celebrated and encouraged.  THAT is what I am having a hard time with.  

I think if the course is good in all ways but being walkable then yes...it still should be praised and celebrated. I'll sacrifice the opportunity to walk if the course is good enough, and by all accounts many of Engh's are that good. The only one I've played, Tullymore, certainly was (although I think that one could be walked, even if there were some long walks between holes).

[DMoriarty]

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.  

[John Kavanaugh]

I think I will coin a new term.."Yellowstone architecture"...stay on the paths and enjoy the view..

[Joe Hancock]

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

[Bruce Katona]

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.

[Ted Kramer]

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

[Andy Troeger]

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!

David,
  I can see how you've read that into his comments, although its important to note that he didn't actually say it. Quite frankly, if everybody on the course is going to be in a cart and the cart is going to be on the cart path, that's probably a logical thing to do. Its a business model, and it evidently works for a great many people. Its just not traditional. Lets remember again, this is a business. Engh I believe in other comments has I believe said that his main goal is to build courses that are fun to play, and its pretty hard at this point to argue with his success. It might not appeal to the traditionalist, but from my limited experience I'll admit that I want to play more of his courses
Andy

[DMoriarty]

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.

[Bruce Katona]

We're happy to let them and the customers who do actually walk don't hold up play.

D. Moriarty raised a great point in the design and spatial experience of the customer experiencing the course and cart path.  I had the opportunity with my previous employer to with with Jack Nicklaus's group on a project in Florida.  The attention given to the cart path experience ( modulation of spaces, capturing viewsheds, altering the visual and olfactory experience  by varying plant materials) was quite impressive to a trained landscape architect  as I am.

Perhaps identifying this as a design element in the entire course package is very relative, not withstanding the groups view that walking is preferred.

[Brent Hutto]

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!

[Tim Pitner]

If cart revenue is the only way to keep a given course in business, then maybe that course isn't really worth keeping around.  Seriously, I can appreciate the business aspect of carts, but to suggest that we ought to encourage carts in order to keep the game, which was meant to be a walking game, going is really putting the cart before the horse (so to speak).  

[Brent Hutto]

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.

[Dave Bourgeois]

Bruce,

I re-read Joe Hancock's post (at your suggestion) on his course in MI and had a couple of thoughts.

Cart revenue is certainly a necessity for many operators, and few would argue that. I would much rather see carts be available and more courses stay open, than folks having to close because they can’t generate enough cash by walkers only.  I’m a public golfer so I love to have lots of golf courses to choose from.

What is somewhat objectionable is designing a course with a mentality that most will ride so the routing can completely ignore walkers.   This is a non traditional stance and would be a troubling trend if most new architecture went that direction.  I would hate for walking, which has been a large part of golf, be ignored in the design process regardless of site (like a flat one that’s still designed with just the rider in mind).

I realize that the design with regards to walking/carts only depends on the site, clients/members, purpose of the course etc. This is why I wondered if Jim Engh’s comments centered around resort courses where most ride anyway.  

[Brad Klein]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.

Shouldn't this read as follows?  

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

[Tim Pitner]

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.

[cary lichtenstein]

Tim:

I know your last sentence was sarcastic, but a good course, Wolf Creek, was so poorly designed for cart use, that they make you sign a liability waiver on the first tee, and you take your life into your hands when going down their cart paths.

You can not enjoy driving from spot A to spot B as all you want to do is stay alive

[Sean_A]

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 Hancock]

Sean,

It seems you have a better understanding of the economics of this than most.

For anyone to say that a golf course must not be worth keeping around because it relies on SOME cart revenue is either very young or very naive or too full of themself as a walking "maverick".

Tell the dozens, if not hundreds of people that are going to learn the game at one of these courses this year that the course is going to close if they don't pay much higher prices to walk. They'll walk alright....walk straight away from a game that is currently struggling from the requirement of time and money.

Joe

[Sean_A]

Joe

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

Ciao

Sean