Jim Engh Shoots Straight

[Mike Hendren]

Huck,

Weekend Rates:

Rustic Canyon  $55
Engh's Fossil Trace $56



If there's room for quirk in the game, why not whimsy?

Mike

[Tom Huckaby]

Looks great to me!

Just remember though that $55 out here is dirt cheap.  Methinks $56 in Colorado isn't the same....

Not that that matters too much.  Hell I like both courses.

TH

[Craig Van Egmond]

And $56 here in Oklahoma is freaking outrageous!!    


Huckster, have you played any courses that you didn't like?  

[Tim Pitner]

I think there's a bit of a chicken and egg question going on here.  Perhaps one reason 90% (too high of a figure, I believe) of golfers ride a cart is that too many people build courses that aren't easily walkable.  In Colorado, the extreme distances between greens and tees is the number one reason for five hour rounds.  I'm a militant walker and I know there are a lot of people who, like me, would like to get some exercise during the time in which they leave their families for an extended period to play golf.  Now, if only more architects built courses which permitted that to happen.  

[Tom Huckaby]

And $56 here in Oklahoma is freaking outrageous!!    


Huckster, have you played any courses that you didn't like?  

Craig:  not many.  I do love this game, and do for the most part pick and choose where I spend the hard-earned time.

But ask me about THE RANCH AT SILVER CREEK.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

I think there's a bit of a chicken and egg question going on here.  Perhaps one reason 90% (too high of a figure, I believe) of golfers ride a cart is that too many people build courses that aren't easily walkable.  In Colorado, the extreme distances between greens and tees is the number one reason for five hour rounds.  I'm a militant walker and I know there are a lot of people who, like me, would like to get some exercise during the time in which they leave their families for an extended period to play golf.  Now, if only more architects built courses which permitted that to happen.  

Tim,

Exactly.

I walked Morgan Hill in PA which is about as much elevation change (and probably more) than I ever would recommend anyone ever build a golf course on and which also has a large housing component inherent in the routing.

I'll never buy the argument that we "had" to create a course that was unwalkable because of terrain, housing, or any other reason after playing (and walking) there.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim:

You make very valid points - there is a chicken/egg thing going on most definitely, and that was kinda what I was trying to get at.

If more walkable courses get built, more people walk.  And that has to be a good thing for golf as a whole, not to mention you militant walkers (I am definitely not one - prefer to walk, but don't care that much if I take a cart and find many times I enjoy that more).

Thus we root, root, root for the guys who build those, and hope they get attention and glory and achieve success.  If that happens, the movement toward affordable, walkable courses grows.  And it is happening, little by little.

BUT... there is a strong feeling out there that agrees with Jim Engh, that's for sure.  And I suppose there is room for that type of golf.  The danger occurs when that is ALL there is being built new...

TH

[ed_getka]

Brent,
  I loved your post. One of my favorites so far this year. If only I knew how to do the quote thing.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ed - it's very easy - instead of reply, hit quote - it automatically quotes the post you are referencing.  For example this one is a reply to yours.....

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent,
  I loved your post. One of my favorites so far this year. If only I knew how to do the quote thing.

and this one is a quote.  All I did was click on the quote button, top right.

[ed_getka]

I agree with the AwShuckster (tm) about the elephant in the room. I'm perfectly happy thriving in a culture here that values walkable, intimately routed courses. But I'm also perfectly happy admitting that we're a bunch of elitist curmudgeons by the standards of the larger golf culture here in the USA.

Thanks Tom. I would never have figured that out. I hate computers. They are only intuitive for those who know how to use them already.

[Tom Huckaby]

My pleasure.  And great line, quoted or not.

I didn't do so because a quote with a quote imbedded starts to look really weird.

 

[David Kelly]

I don't see what the story is here.  Engh works on sites that for the most part are not going to be easily walkable no matter what approach he takes in construction so he is just spinning a little in order to head off potential criticism that his courses are unwalkable while he simultaneously tries to sell cart golf as desireable.

[PThomas]

I wonder if Jim said what many other architects think/do...

[cary lichtenstein]

I have discussed the cart golf with Jim Engh and he makes a very good point that 90% of all golf is played in carts and if he can give the golfer a better experiece both eye candy wise and shot value wise, he is going to do it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I discussed his Ireland design with him, and he did change his approach drastically there.

For designs in the good old US of A, I agree with his approach on most sites.  In the mountains, cart use is probably 90% and I believe it is 60% overall.

I for one do not believe that the design is a deterrant that limits walking. I think its our weight, sedentary lifestyles, etc.  MOST golfers would take a cart on even the most walkable course, if offered, so don't blame Jim for them not walking.

And, as others have noted, presuming cart use does allow elevated tees to take advantage of those georgeous mountain views they have, enhancing the experience for most.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jeff:

Of course design isn't the only reason that makes people ride; all that you mention plays into it, plus some people just find it kinda fun.

BUT... what about the potentially large percentage of golfers who do base it on the course?

That is, if its a doable walk, they walk.  If it's not, they ride.

I am one of those.  I can't be alone.  In fact damn near everyone I know outside of this forum treats it that way (the ones who just ride no matter what have a health reason to do do).

And what about people new to the game?  Is it really best that we make cart-ball the default?

Is the answer really to just cave in and cater to cartballers?  This just plain can't be good for the game, can it?

Again, I can't blame Jim too much for taking this tack; it does seem to work for his personal success and altruism may well be too much to hope for.  I just do remain thankful that not ALL of you think this way.  And I continue to hope that affordable walkable designs do get celebrated more than the alternative.

TH

[Joe Hancock]

Huck,

Real world example coming at ya, so get ready.....

We own a mom and pop 18 hole course in Michigan. It's as flat as you can imagine. We do a ton of business at league time (4pm til dark) and we are a course where many people learn to play the game. Guess what? I estimate 65-70% of our play rides. Not only that, I'm glad they do to an extent because without that revenue,we would likely have to close our doors due to taxation, labor, fuel, etc. (Property taxes alone last year: $80k).

Unless you're a significant destination (think Bandon), it is impossible to make it without the evil golf cart. Put a great course on a great site and the walking aspect becomes worth the martyrdom many here embrace, but otherwise it's a pipedream.

Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

The operators sure want to make cart ball the default, since its a profit center in a tough environment to make a buck. So, we will have to define "what is good for the game?"  The increase in cart use has been ongoing for decades. It may go up or down with the economy (I'll walk if it saves money) but in general the trend is up.

Can design affect that?  Not to a great degree, as making use of modern conveniences is a American as apple pie.

You seem to think that there is a "potentially large" segment of golfers out there that would walk more, if (sob) only the course would let them.  While I don't deny that "they" are out there, I don't see it in as great a numbers in any stats I see, or in my experience.

For example, my redo of Indian Creek here in Dallas is a flat, close green to tee course with a walking option, and it just doesn't happen any less than the 60% carts that are in use everywhere else.  Stats don't lie, while personal perceptions/preferences may mislead.

[Brent Hutto]

Unless you're a significant destination (think Bandon), it is impossible to make it without the evil golf cart. Put a great course on a great site and the walking aspect becomes worth the martyrdom many here embrace, but otherwise it's a pipedream.

I read "martyrdom" to mean trying to make a success of operating a golf course without offering carts, right? Surely not referring to the activity of walking per se.

[Tom Huckaby]

Joe:

I live in the real world, I absolutely understand that and none of it surprises me one iota.  I get how this works.  I see the vast majority of players riding at my local course, which is as walkable as can be.  I know the course counts on the cart income.

So this is just pie in the sky, hopeful kinda stuff - relating to new courses being built.

Shouldn't we celebrate more those which are designed with walking in mind, so that the walkers have a chance to begin with?

Or is this such a done deal that we all should just punt, acknowledge the reality as Engh does, and start celebrating nice sight-lines from cart paths?

I just can't buy that.  

The game is better when walking, the game is meant to be played walking.  On top of that, it surely does seem to me walkable courses can be made cheaper, meaning cheaper green fees, so that's an issue as well.

Thus the question isn't whether Engh or anyone is wrong in his views; of course he's right, that's how the golf world is.

The question is, should we be happy about it or resigned to it, or is there room to still fight the good fight?

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

The operators sure want to make cart ball the default, since its a profit center in a tough environment to make a buck. So, we will have to define "what is good for the game?"  The increase in cart use has been ongoing for decades. It may go up or down with the economy (I'll walk if it saves money) but in general the trend is up.

Can design affect that?  Not to a great degree, as making use of modern conveniences is a American as apple pie.

You seem to think that there is a "potentially large" segment of golfers out there that would walk more, if (sob) only the course would let them.  While I don't deny that "they" are out there, I don't see it in as great a numbers in any stats I see, or in my experience.

For example, my redo of Indian Creek here in Dallas is a flat, close green to tee course with a walking option, and it just doesn't happen any less than the 60% carts that are in use everywhere else.  Stats don't lie, while personal perceptions/preferences may mislead.

Jeff - thanks for that.  I kinda figured it might be a pipedream to think there was a large segment that would walk more.  

BUT... isn't it still better if courses are designed that allow for this?  Shouldn't we encourage it, and celebrate those more?

Or is this really a completely done deal?

TH

[Brent Hutto]

The operators sure want to make cart ball the default, since its a profit center in a tough environment to make a buck.

To nitpick, I'm sure the course operators view golf carts as a "profit center" but the more useful way to think of it is offering carts to the portion of the customer base who want to ride. It is a source of consternation to me when a golf course bases its policies on the assumption that the number of rounds and the "green fee" they can charge are constants to be taken for granted and that making people ride and charging a "cart fee" just represents free money to be had. By that moronic line of reasoning it would make sense for every course in the country to disallow walking. Hey, while they're at it they should make the "cart fee" forty bucks and only charge twenty bucks for the "green fee"...that would be hugely more profitable than the usual reverse  

To golfing consumers like myself, there's nothing profitable about golf carts because I only ride about 3-5 of my 100+ rounds per year. Not much profit in that. Especially when you consider that a carts-only course has to be about a Doak 5+ for me to even consider playing it (occasional social obligations aside). Fortunately for the status quo in the golf industry, consumers like me are only 1/10 of the market so by and large we can be ignored without messing up their finely crafted business plans.

[Mike_Cirba]

This is hysterical.  Now we're hearing that cartball courses are mandatory because nobody likes to walk, or because the revenue generation is necessary or these poor courses would go out of business.  

Talk about the tail wagging the dog!  

Did anyone every consider a "trail fee" for walkers if revenue is the issue?  Or, just work the overall cost into your fee structure and let people choose to walk or ride.

And architects...sheesh, you guys act as though your hands are tied behind your backs and someone is forcing you to accept sites completely unsuitable to the game, or so disjointed by definition that there is no way to create anything even closely resembling intimacy and walkability.  The best you can all do is just give up even trying to create a walkable routing and just schlep us all on carts and take us for a nice ride around, making sure to locate all the tees at high points for visual impact.  

Frankly, if forced to play all of my golf on unwalkable cart ball courses I would not play.  

Simple as that.

[Tom Huckaby]

Mike, that is all great stuff and some great questions.  However, where this sort of fails is in this:

Frankly, if forced to play all of my golf on unwalkable cart ball courses I would not play.  

Simple as that.

You are VERY unique in that stance.  Oh, not in here, you have plenty of compadres.  But out in the real world, well...

As much as I am clamoring for walkable courses, well playing golf period is still way more important to me.  If I all had available were cart ball courses, I'd sure as hell still play.  And remember I'm seen as a zealot/purist/wacko by all my golf friends outside of here.  Good lord wait till they see me with hickories....

And developers know that.  There are WAY more addicted golfers/ apathetic about the issue golfers  / ride-only golfers than there are militant walkers.

So my question is what can be done besides vote with my feet?  Because I don't see that making any difference.

What CAN make a difference is how courses are celebrated/praised/ranked.  If the walkable ones get more of the ink, this worm can turn.

TH