Jim Engh Shoots Straight

[Mike Hendren]

Jim Engh is profiled in the March 10th edition of Goldweek's SuperNews.

An excerpt:

"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.'"

Lest the cognoscenti howl, the articles goes on to list a portfolio of 15 designs, 4 of which grace Golfweek's Top 100 modern list.  In that regard, he has outpointed such stalwarts as George C. Thomas, Jr. and Tom Doak, among others on the combined lists.  

Comments?

Mike

[Bill_McBride]

NASCAR golf?

[Mike Hendren]

Bill,

I revised my post to delete the question you capably answered.  My original closing question detracted from the possible discussion.   My bad.  Please feel to delete and I'll do the same with this post.

Mike

[A_Clay_Man]

Bogey, I suppose it could be the out-of-context effect, but, the flaw in Mr. Engh's logic lies in one's inability to absorb a golf course, or a golf hole, from the back of a buggy.

The ability to experience everything is magnified exponentially as one walks.

Creating interesting holes, that stand on thier own,  proliferates the scorecard mentality in rating courses, too.  

Showing little respect for key intangibles such as routing & flow.

Also, this only leads to courses that are a collection of 18 good-great holes.

 So, I vote for the Collection era.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have lost all right to complain considering I have admited to being on the range with an iPod plugged into my head...I will not discriminate or rail against those who choose not to walk or fail to provide facilities for those who do..

Mike...I can't believe you have started your second hate thread in two days...shame on you.

[Brent Hutto]

Adam,

His point seems to be that for many courses nobody is out there absorbing the course afoot anyway.

I have no problem imagining that the set of contraints imposed by building a perfect walking course conflict with the set of contraints imposed by building a course that is as good as it can possibly be for the guy in a cart on the cart paths.

Keep in mind that just as the majority of golfers ride (at least in my neck of the woods) and awful big proportion of those riding rounds are under a cart-paths-only restriction. I think Engh is saying that if he has to choose between a hole that the guy on the cart path can't enjoy vs. a hole that the guy walking down the middle of the fairway misses out on...he is going to side with the carts. I think that's a valid business model.

Having said all that, here's the kicker...

Once you declare that walking doesn't matter, the sky's the limit. If you want to spread your 18 holes out over 400 acres of housing development, a good architect can probably build 18 nice-looking holes (from the cart path) that use the most attractive and easy-to-build-on parts of the property. I think his "90% of golfers" exaggeration is ultimately self-serving and may be more of a rationalization than a starting principle.

[Mike Hendren]

John,

Hate thread? I'm just trying to get back on topic.

Hillbillies do not use iPods.  I'd pay money to see your play list and can only hope it includes the Deliverance soundtrack.  

I fear that bread and butter (or ham and eggs) golf course architecture is gone with the wind.  It will be interesting to see what Engh digs out of the Georgia clay this year.  

Mike
Hopeless Friend of Barney

[mike_malone]

 What happens when energy costs go through the roof ?


   I know in our area that certain courses will fall off the play list if cart fees skyrocket.


   

[Joe Hancock]

I think there is something here besides the normal "carts and making money as a golf operator are evil" thoughts.

By most peoples perceptions, Jim Engh is a highly talented and sought out golf course arcitect. The fact that he has a pretty good clue as to how to make the customer happy while designing good golf courses put him head and shoulders above most people in business.

Let's face it. Not every project will be the next Bandon. Nor is that style of golf for everyone. Jim has a market, and does a very respectable job.

Joe

[A_Clay_Man]

Brent, I have no problem with the business model. What I do have a problem with are people who espouse that these riding only courses are the epitome of quality G.C. designs.
If "the industry" wants to use the commercially accepted as a measure of quality, so be it. I, for one, will not be swayed in accepting this. Ever.

[Chris_Hunt]

Frankly, his comments are tragic, and yet another validation for me to experience his courses from a few choice photographs rather than by going to play them.

No doubt he is an excellent businessman.

[Brent Hutto]

If "the industry" wants to use the commercially accepted as a measure of quality, so be it. I, for one, will not be swayed in accepting this. Ever.

I'm with you, Adam. There are many, many golfers for whom the design of the golf course as experienced in a cart matters and what it's like afoot matters not at all. So ask them about good golf courses and it's likely their answer will be very different than mine. Same thing applies to those who (as Jeff Warne puts it) answer any inquiry about a golf course by telling you what score they shot and whether the greens were fast and smooth.

But if you ask me whether a course is any good or not, I guarantee my answer won't take into account what the views were like from the cart path.

[Mike Hendren]

What I do have a problem with are people who espouse that these riding only courses are the epitome of quality G.C. designs.

So, it's the raters' fault?

Mike

[Jack_Marr]

So does he change this philosophy when designing in Ireland? I would say 5% of people use carts over here.

[John Kavanaugh]

What I do have a problem with are people who espouse that these riding only courses are the epitome of quality G.C. designs.

So, it's the raters' fault?

Mike

I'm not one to blame raters...but I would say that anytime a best of list contains cart-ball golf...cart-ball golf is best by definition.  

[Matt_Ward]

The proof of Jim Engh's success comes with the golf courses he has produced. Albeit much of it is in the mountain time zone and likely few people on GCA or elsewhere have played more than just one or two at best.

Keep firmly in mind, that many of the key sites he has worked are on very severe terrain and I can see where his comments would tie with that.

I have had the opportunity to play about a dozen of his designs and while they are always entertaining they are not always rock solid. Jim does get a bit "creative" with mounding, green contours and the like -- but to his vast credit he does accentuate the "fun" elements in his work and most golfers will never ascribe the word "boring" to his work.

Frankly, I am not a huge fan of Sanctuary in Sedalia, CO which often gets mega reviews because of the unique site and the manner by which Engh overcame the severity of the property.

I frankly think Sanctuary is no where near as good as recent efforts such as Pradera in Parker, CO and Lakota Canyon Ranch in New Castle, CO. Both are tremendously fun to play and clearly are intertwined with what Mother Nature provided.

It will be interesting see how Jim does with other locations such as Reyonolds Plantation and the work at Carne in Ireland.

I hope to play Blackstone in AZ sometime later this spring.

All in all, Engh is the flipside of the classical preferred architect that many are inclined to prefer here on GCA.

[Tom Huckaby]

Isn't this the elephant in the room we all see but refuse to acknowledge?

Hey, Engh is right:  90% of US golfers play out of a cart.  So why not design for them?  He is being very practical, and his success sure shouldn't surprise anyone.

Of course the problem is this:  these big, cart-ball courses cost way more money to build, right?  And thus require far greater green-fees, right?

Man it sure would be better if attention and success did NOT go to guys like Engh who acknowledge this reality, but more to the architects more celebrated in here, who DO design with walking in mind, lower-costs, etc.

Jeez I hate to trot out the oft-used Tim Weiman line, but we do want to play more, not pay more.

Thus the problem here.  In a perfect world, we have more altruism and good of the game thoughts.

But of course the world is far far far from perfect.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt,

What about carts?

Do you, in determining your preferences, believe that a course that is so intimate as to be walkable is by definition better on that count than one where cart rides, long and short, are mandatory and necessary to traverse the course?

I've yet to play one of Jim's courses, but from the description I'm imagining something where there is no real continuity from green to next tee, but instead an effort to find the next dramatic landscape, set a tee high atop it, and created 18 segmented, unconnected visual treats than something where you have a sense of interconnected place.

Please tell me my impressions are incorrect.  

[Mike Hendren]

It will be interesting see how Jim does with other locations such as Reyonolds Plantation and the work at Carne in Ireland.

Matt,

The article goes on to say that the 18th at the Engh's Reynolds course will be a par five with three distinct greens.  Engh says, "I couldn't pick one over the other, so I thought, 'Why not use them all.'"

Let's meet down there when it opens.  Looks like we have a new maverick on our hands.  

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

Huck,

The real elephant in this room is that cost is absolutely no factor whatsoever for 90% of the treehouse.  Let's face it, just about everybody is loaded.

Mike

[Brent Hutto]

My most negative experience with a Mike Strantz course is the one at True Blue that has alternate greens. That concept does not work in my opinion. Perhaps the Engh three-green eighteenth will change my mind one day but the burden of proof is on him to prove it's not just a gimmick that detracts from the quality of the hole. All IMHO of course.

[Brent Hutto]

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.

[Andy Hughes]

Brent, interesting call on Strantz's hole. That was my least favorite hole on a course I liked quite a bit.  But it wasn't the greens, it was the hole itself which fell flat for me and did not seem to fit with the rest.
For two greens to work well, there should be some reason--either the original is so small it needs a 'rest' now and then, or the strategy of the hole changes with the changing of the green, or perhaps there are two really good greensites and it would be a pity to not use one.  None of these seemed to be the case on the True Blue hole; rather, it just looked gimmicky.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

I have stated before that I don't find carts so objectionable as many do here. They are necessary for a whole host of reasons. I have said that if cart rides become the DOMINANT aspect of the time spent playing a course than they have too much of a role and detract from the experience when playing.

I always enjoy walking but keep this in mind -- the sites many architects face today are very challenging and often include housing into the mixture. Many of these new layouts are trying to preserve walking and that's great. However, I don't put a black mark against courses simply because carts are part and parcel in playing them. Provided the cart rides don't become soooooooo excessive between holes and the like.

Mike -- before assuming that Jim doesn't understand sound golf design I would ask that you play his courses before making or contemplating any firm conclusion. I've played a dozen -- likely more than any one else here on GCA. I believe his work is often fun and rarely boring. He does have to deal with some of the most demanding land / grade changes and with that comes some daring moments that can work at times and at other times much less so.

In sum -- your impressions, from my point of view, are not correct. In fact, one can very easily walk the likes of Pradera and Lakota Canyon if one opted to do so.

[Tom Huckaby]

Bogey and Brent - you guys are both right on.

Cost doesn't matter that much at all for many in here, and that is another elephant.  Hell, I like to characterize myself as a public-course player, and my wife still does give me major guff about golf spending, but that doesn't mean the money doesn't get spent.  So even I don't have it as an issue all that much.  And if I don't no one does.

But that being said, man I do sure as hell love low-cost greatness, like Wild Horse, Rustic, a few others!

And the funny thing is also, I've turned into one of the eltitist curmudgeons Brent admits to being also.  

You guys have ruined me.  

But in a very large way, you guys are right.

TH