Jim Engh Shoots Straight

[cary lichtenstein]

Tom:

I'll try to get Jim Engh to post something to clear this up.

Cary

[Tom Huckaby]

Joe - I played ANGC once, and was warned to follow the map to get to the next hole - I hear ya re that.    My round there we just rode - I was with my Dad and he wanted to, so I didn't think twice - but you're right, that course wouldn't be a bad walk at all - especially if they put in some paths and made some effort to cater to walkers.  The fact walking is prohibited outside of undue efforts like yours is really disconcerting - and this is the basis behind all of my questions on this thread.  Is that really how golf should be?

Cary - jeez if Engh would address this it would be great.  It is always difficult taking too much from any one quote - context is a wonderful thing - so maybe he can explain.  Alternatively, maybe this is just how he thinks, and if so, well... as I've said several times, he's pretty darn successful so more power to him.  He just can't expect anyone truly concerned with the good of the game to jump up and pat him on the back, that's all.

 

[Jay Flemma]

I interviewed Jim Engh twice.  He studied arch in the UK and Ire.

The Jim Engh I know does not have a medieval attitude toward walking.  He is supportuive of it.

I really think there is just a misunderstanding here.  Something may have gotten lost in translation.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jay - it would be odd for someone working on Carne to have such an anti-walking attitude.

Nevertheless, at least for me, this isn't so much about Engh personally as it is about the general trend - Engh's quote is just the genesis of discussion here.  PLENTY of borderline unwalkable new courses get high praise these days in terms of ranking/publicity/etc. and to me it's just not right.  Like I say, they ought to be tolerated, not celebrated.

TH

[Jay Flemma]

The way I do it, is they lose points if they dont let you walk or are unwalkable.

That being said...despite that fact, when I cast my vote for best new public course last year, I voted for Lakota.  Its that good.

Here were its scores:  Design:  Six stars
Natural Setting:  Seven Stars
Conditioning – Five and 1/2 stars
Cost - $75 normally, 3PM twilight $65
Value – Six and ½ stars
Overall - Six and ½ stars

[Tom Huckaby]

The way I'd do it is unwalkable courses would be ineligible for honors - or at least, they'd be in a separate category all to themselves.

But I don't rule the golf world.

 

So Lakota sounds pretty cool to me - I'd play it, and I have no doubt that I'd enjoy it.

I just wouldn't want to call it the best anything except "best cartball track."

TH

[Andy Troeger]

Jay:

How do you explain this quote:


He figures that because 90 perent of all golfers use a cart, there is no reason to design a golf course for the few who do not.  He's more interested in crafting good holes, each with its own identity, than making a golf course walkable.  Along the way, he's sure to highlight views of the course.  It's what he calls 'the golf cart-path experience.'"


Seems to me he doesn't give a rat's ass about walkers.  How else can one read that?

TH

Tom,
The one thing I'd say is to remember that this is a writer's interpretation of what Jim said. From the way it was presented it was not an actual quote from Jim Engh. I wrote for a newspaper for a couple of years...there is a big difference between the two.

[Tom Huckaby]

Andy - understood completely.

But taking it at face value, there's really no other interpretation.

In any case, I doubt Engh is the ONLY one who feels this way.. and as I say, this isn't nearly as much about Engh personally as it is about attitudes toward cart-ball and walking in general (as I see it, anyway).

I truly do think cart-ball tracks should have their own category - tolerated courses.  Never thought I'd get so hardass about this, as I play them all the time and typically do enjoy them if the individual holes are good enough - but I have come to believe they are bad for the game.

TH