Jim Engh par three amphitheater template?

[DMoriarty]

David, I'm just too busy to do the legwork for you on this one.   No, Jim does not omit walkers from planning a course.  Jim had a long discussion with the discussion group about this topic on several occasions.  If you don't want to believe that, that's fine, but it's not proper to proliferate something dispelled long ago.  The article in Golfweek was a blatant mistake - a leap of logic that was horribly wrong.  Jim never said that or inferred that he designs for the people who take carts.

Jay,  I am not sure I'd characterize it as my legwork.  You are the one who is claiming I am proliferating something that has been dispelled, so I believe that backing up your claim is your legwork.  Not mine.  I am sure you don't mean to offend, but I am not entirely comfortable with you accusing me of proliferating misinformation while at the same time you are refusing to back up your claim.   

That being said, I'm with you on your last sentence:

It goes to show you can't trust every article you find...even recent ones.  Just because something is published doesn't make it correct.  So we all ought to be careful, because trying to read interpretations into articles from decades ago has the same peril.

I agree and the same goes from interpreting anything, no matter when written.  That is why I'd like to see for myself where Mr. Engh contradicts the article.     Here again is the quote from the article:

"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.'"

I've looked at the old threads, and if Jim Engh corrected the author then I haven't been able to find it.  In fact, it seems to me that Mr. Engh is very comfortable with the notion that fostering the golf cart-path experience, including highlighting the views of the course, is a very important part of his design philosophy.

But let's let Mr. Engh speak for himself.   Here is what he wrote after someone complimented him for setting out to design a walkable course in Nebraska:

. . .
I am glad that you like the fact that I am designing, by intention, a walkable golf course. However, don't be mistaken into thinking that I have changed my stripes. I still, and will always believe that the single greatest thing about the game of golf, is the diversity of the settings upon which the game is played. From desert golf to mountain golf to prairie golf to woodland golf to links golf to ocean golf, each type of golfing experience should be appreciated. That is what seperates our game from the sterile experience of bowling. Some of these types of courses, by nature, do not allow for easy walking and I will always choose to create inspiring golf holes with the use of a cart, rather than mundain golf holes walking. As this discussion group seems to be fairly well slanted  toward one type of golf, my opinion on this matter may not be openly embraced. And thats ok.
. . .

I too was glad to read he is focusing on walking on this project.  But generally, it sounds like he is very comfortable with creating golf courses where walking is not even a consideration, and that he would never consider passing up "inspiring golf holes" for the sake of walkability.  It is very similar to what the GolfWeek SuperNews article said:  "He's more interested in crafting good holes, each with its own identity, than making a golf course walkable. "

He said similar things in response to a question that apparently stemmed directly from GolfWeek SuperNews article.  Here was the question and his answer, from later in the same thread:

Jim, I either read or heard that you designed courses for carts because 90 per cent of golfers take a cart.  Any truth?

. . .
Tommy - I suppose that I have said that on certain courses, you get 90% cart use. This is especially true in the mountains. However, I would not say that I design courses for carts. Much as with every element of the design process, I give them great consideration. Like it or not, much of the overall experience of the golfer will be gathered from the seat of a cart. If you don't consider that issue, you are missing an opportunity to be better. I simply choose to make an effort to present my work in a positive manner from the cart paths.

I am a guy that carries an old canvas Ping Sunday bag, takes six clubs to Ireland and plays in Merrill hiking boots. My heart lies with most of you guys on the walking issue.  However, I simply cannot ignore the realities of my profession.
. . .

I find this statement to be a bit self contradictory.  He wrote that he doesn't design for carts, but the entire rest of the paragraph seems to be about the reasons he designs for carts.
. . . I give [carts] great consideration . . .
. . . much of the overall experience of the golfer will be gathered from the seat of a cart . . .
. . . If you don't consider that issue, you are missing an opportunity to be better . . .
. . . I simply choose to present my work in a positive manner from the cart paths . . .

Again, isn't this what the GolfWeek SuperNews article said?   Along the way, he's sure to highlight views of the course.  It's what he calls 'the golf cart-path experience.

Isn't Mr. Engh saying the  almost the exact same thing as the GolfWeek article?   If not, I am missing the difference.   

The only possible distinction I can see between what he has said on this site is if you read the GolfWeek article as implying that walkers are never a consideration.  I agree that walking must be some sort of consideration on at least some of his work (the Nebraska course, for example.)  But I think it is fair to say that walkers or not a consideration on what he considers sites that are not easily walkable and where I high percentage will take carts.   

But that to raises some questions because the vast majority of golfers ride at most courses.  So it is hard to imagine when walking would be a major consideration aside from a directive from the owner.   Also, given that a chance for an inspiring hole will always trump walkabilty, it is hard to see just how walking is given much consideration even where walking may have been possible.   

__________________________________________

By the way, I enjoyed going back and reading many of the threads in which Jim Engh participated, and commend him for taking the time to participate in what he must have thought could turn into a hostile environment.   I am only sorry I missed those threads because some of them looked very interesting, especially the one he started on the role of nature.    As I have said before he seems like a good guy. 

I found his answers refreshingly straightforward, and I think I understand his approach better after reading the threads and rereading the interview.  He answered some of my questions that many here haven't been able to really address. 

That being said, after reading Engh's take on things I am even more perplexed about many of the posts obstensively defending his work.   But maybe more on that later.

[Tom Yost]

I have played only one Engh course, Blackstone in Peoria AZ.

I have no comment on the "designed for carts" question.  It seems apparent to me that most courses being built in the recent decade have been real estate courses where routings seem to favor the cart.   

As for the amphitheater greensites, I have long considered Scott Miller the king of containment mounding, but after playing Blackstone, I must crown Jim Engh the new champ.

Not saying it's good or bad, but most of the greensites, not just par 3's, sat within bowl-like natural features.   I did not however, notice any cart paths encircling the green. 

I found Blackstone to be a fun and sporty layout, not traditional by any means, but certainly interesting and entertaining.  My views might be clouded by the fact that I shot my career best round there which included my first ever eagle on a par 4 (making liberal use of the amphitheater to bring the ball back to the hole).

[DMoriarty]

Matt,    I've gone back and looked at our early exchanges on Black Rock and Engh, going back 4 or 5 years I think.    They are pretty funny, especially where you adamantly argue that Black Rock was designed for walking.  

Regarding the issue of the bowled greens and concave fairways, you were also adamant that there was nothing wrong with the fairways and greens.  The fairway and green shapes were fine by your reckoning.  You even argued that neither the fairways nor greens were protected by containment mounding.   You also argued that I couldn't generalize about his style because this was not an issue at most his other courses either.

Now you have switched course, at least partly, and argue that Engh used to build too much of this stuff, but has undergone some sort of metamorphosis.  He may well have, but my question is about you.

When did you start to come around on this issue?   And why?   How can you go from saying there is no problem with this type of feature to saying that it is a good thing he moved away from using it?    Hasn't it turned out that the criticisms were very much on point, and that whether or not Engh has changed, he was obviously overusing this feature in the past?  

And Matt, how could you have missed this?  What with all the Jim Engh courses that you have seen?   And why did you wait until he is changing his style to admit there was a problem that needed fixing?  

_______________________

Tom Yost,   Thanks for your comments and congratulations on your eagle.  Did you call the bank shot?  

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

One can walk Black Rock -- heck, walking Bethpage Black is more taxing. Please, you've got to come up something better than that because if there's anything amusing it's your desire to do the one-upsmanship on me.

Let's talk agaiin about Engh fairways and greens. In many cases his usage of mounds works quite well -- I have never stated that all Engh courses are beyond discussion or when merited serious criticism when things go over-the-top. In fact, I have been rather balanced in my analysis of the 15 different Engh courses I have played. You must have missed those posts or simply diverted your attention to those in which you can make whatever case you are attempting to make.

You, on the other hand, have made it a point, to highlight the lack of golf design reality from Engh courses -- save for the lone ONE you have actually played, I admire people who have expertise on subject matters from which they have no direct linkage. Of course, I expect the predictable retort that I am simply on some sort of "soapbox" - always love when people can't refute a clear and direct charge but instead go for the twist around technique.

Let me point out AGAIN -- that Engh has NOT moved away from this design element -- but been much more adept in using it when circumstances arise in which it can be a pivotal aspect of the hole. Let me point out a clear example -- the 2nd at Pradera -- it's in Parker, CO, Dave. The hole has two large mounds that obscure the site of the green but they permit an alleyway -- similar to what you see at The Old Course / Ballybunion. The player needs to slot his tee shot so the line of site to the hole can be seen. Push or pull and the shot becomes more demanding. It's a great usage there and fits quite well. In some of his earlier works -- Redlands Mesa to be precise the issue of mounds is simply added to the point of overkill on a number of holes. Engh would have been better to follow a "less is more" approach there. He did superbly this with the creation of Four Mile Ranch in Canon City, CO.

The issue is tempering the proliferation of such a technique and Engh has done that on any number of the more recent designs. At Harmony, just south of Fort Collins, Engh did a wonderful job with his mounding on the long par-5 4th(?) and the par-3 7th. They are both solid holes and his usage of such a design element works very well there.

Hope this information helps your understanding.

[Jay Flemma]

David, you are over-thinking this, and building a castle of suspicion upon a single phrase.

Brad was dead wrong with what he wrote in that old quote.  It's caused far too much mayhem on this board.

[Garland Bayley]

David, you are over-thinking this, and building a castle of suspicion upon a single phrase.

Brad was dead wrong with what he wrote in that old quote.  It's caused far too much mayhem on this board.

Jay,

Your knowledge of what is in Jim Engh's mind seems to surpass what travels between Jim's mind and mouth or mind and pen as seen in the quotes form him that David reproduced.
E.g., "I will always choose to create inspiring golf holes with the use of a cart, rather than mundain golf holes walking."
That's not a quote from Brad, it's a quote from Jim.

[Jay Flemma]

David, you are over-thinking this, and building a castle of suspicion upon a single phrase.

Brad was dead wrong with what he wrote in that old quote.  It's caused far too much mayhem on this board.

Jay,

Your knowledge of what is in Jim Engh's mind seems to surpass what travels between Jim's mind and mouth or mind and pen as seen in the quotes form him that David reproduced.
E.g., "I will always choose to create inspiring golf holes with the use of a cart, rather than mundain golf holes walking."
That's not a quote from Brad, it's a quote from Jim.

Well, read what he said...rather than destroy a natural feature that made for a great green site or fairway, he'll keep it.  Isn't that what great architects do?  Use the great natural features of the land rather than bulldoze them.

Again, you guys are way over-thinking this.  Why the desperation to tear down Jim Engh?  he moves a lot less Earth than you would think (usually 250,000-300,000 CY per site...on the average), and always has spomething interesting and unique to say.

[DMoriarty]

What a joke Matt.  Black Rock is not readily walkable, and not designed to be.  (if it had been designed for walking, it would have been a poor attempt.)

As for the rest, thanks for not answering my questions.  Here is a simple one.  How come the bowls at Black Rock used to be fine and not at all impacting play, yet now Engh's use of such features was overdone?

Jay

Over thinking it? Jim Engh wrote essentially the same thing in his post!

I am sure you you will understand that I will take his word on the matter over yours.

I am still interested where Engh explained how the passage was "a blatant mistake". I cannot find that anywhere.

Jay, why the desperation to turn Engh into something he apparantly has no interest in being?

[Garland Bayley]

David, you are over-thinking this, and building a castle of suspicion upon a single phrase.

Brad was dead wrong with what he wrote in that old quote.  It's caused far too much mayhem on this board.

Jay,

Your knowledge of what is in Jim Engh's mind seems to surpass what travels between Jim's mind and mouth or mind and pen as seen in the quotes form him that David reproduced.
E.g., "I will always choose to create inspiring golf holes with the use of a cart, rather than mundain golf holes walking."
That's not a quote from Brad, it's a quote from Jim.

Well, read what he said...rather than destroy a natural feature that made for a great green site or fairway, he'll keep it.  Isn't that what great architects do?  Use the great natural features of the land rather than bulldoze them.
....

If you think that's what he's talking about then I have to quote an eastern politician at an August recess town hall meeting, "What planet are you from?"

[Jay Flemma]

Think what the hell you like, no matter how wrong it is.

Guys, Moriarty is horribly horribly wrong.

Jim told me just yesterday that what he wants people to take from that quote is that he designs the best hole he can find...no more, no less.

And David, as for that crap about "taking his word over mine," I'm the guy who has interviewed him twice, and speaks with him frequently, including just yesterday.  David, you are twisting a quote to mean what you want it to mean, and not listening to someone who talks to him personally and has personal knowledge of the situation.  If H.H. Barker said to you, "david you;re misreading that sentence in that article, that's not what I meant," would you not listen?

When Jim gets back from Idaho, I'll get more from him on this.  But today as well, the guys in Jim's office just confirmed with me again...what David claims that quote to mean is not accurate.  Jim does not throw walkers under the bus.

There David...now you have it, from Engh's team and me - you are dead wrong.  So leave the guy alone.  If you don't like his work, fine.  but you and your friends have no business intentionally twisting statements to an incorrect conclusion.  After all, you might have the unintended effect of wrongly suppress people from going to see his golf courses.

Jim is an accessible guy.  Any one of you can pick up the phone and call him and ask him for a clarification, and he'll cheerfully supply it.

[Matt_Ward]

David:

Please stop -- you have outdone yourself with this silly desire to be serious in learning something here. I'm busting a gut right now with laughter -- if there's a joke here look in the mirror with all due respect. Black Rock can be walked if so desired -- would most people avail themselves if the they could? No -- but that can be said for tons of courses on dead flat land too. Bethpage Black is a much harder walk than Black Rock IMHO.

I answered your questions -- unfortunately, as per usual, they were not to your satisfaction. If you bother to check all of my past responses you will find that a specified certain holes at specific courses were mentioned. I do not suggest that all design elements at Black Rock work perfectly -- I even mentioned how the first par-3 on the inner half is really overdone and was not really adding much to the time there -- especially when you look at the following hole which is also a par-3 and is far, far better.

Please feel free to continue your argument as you deem appropriate.

[Andy Troeger]

My impression was that Black Rock would be a difficult walk, but do-able. Most of the green to tee transitions are pretty short. There are a couple difficult ones to be sure.

[DMoriarty]

Jay, I am not sure just why you are getting so upset.  Quoting Jim Engh from this board is not out of line on my part, especially because you repeatedly referred me to his old posts.   If anyone has reason to be upset it is me, given that you apparently sent me on a wild goose chase, claiming that I would find that Jim Engh disavowed the content of the quote.  If anything, he confirmed the quote by writing essentially the same thing.  

But I am not upset.  You did me a favor.  There is some really interesting stuff in there by Engh and in his thread(s) and I am glad I took a look.   For example, I am more convinced than ever that making his golf courses walkable is well down on Engh's priority list, if it makes his list at all.   How could anyone conclude any differently, given these passages, taken verbatim from his post?

I am glad that you like the fact that I am designing, by intention, a walkable golf course. However, don't be mistaken into thinking that I have changed my stripes. I still, and will always believe that the single greatest thing about the game of golf, is the diversity of the settings upon which the game is played. From desert golf to mountain golf to prairie golf to woodland golf to links golf to ocean golf, each type of golfing experience should be appreciated. That is what seperates our game from the sterile experience of bowling. Some of these types of courses, by nature, do not allow for easy walking and I will always choose to create inspiring golf holes with the use of a cart, rather than mundain golf holes walking. As this discussion group seems to be fairly well slanted  toward one type of golf, my opinion on this matter may not be openly embraced. And thats ok.

. . . and . . .


Tommy - I suppose that I have said that on certain courses, you get 90% cart use. This is especially true in the mountains. However, I would not say that I design courses for carts. Much as with every element of the design process, I give them great consideration. Like it or not, much of the overall experience of the golfer will be gathered from the seat of a cart. If you don't consider that issue, you are missing an opportunity to be better. I simply choose to make an effort to present my work in a positive manner from the cart paths.

I am a guy that carries an old canvas Ping Sunday bag, takes six clubs to Ireland and plays in Merrill hiking boots. My heart lies with most of you guys on the walking issue.  However, I simply cannot ignore the realities of my profession.

And it is not like I am taking him out of context or selectively pulling some quotes and ignoring others.  That is pretty much all he wrote about trying to make his courses walkable, other than that he plans to make the Nebraska course walkable.   And Jay,  I am not even relying the article here.   Engh himself wrote essentially the above.   Are we to believe he misunderstand or misrepresented himself?   Did he take himself out of context?   Did he put the wrong words in his own mouth?    

As for your comments above, I wish you'd tone them down a bit.   You cannot seriously expect me or anyone else to ignore what Jim Engh wrote.  You can't seriously expect me or anyone else to substitute in what you wish we'd take from the posts even if it would mean ignoring his own words.   Surely you know that is asking too much.   I don't care how many times you've interviewed him or when you talked to him, he is still entitled to speak for himself.  And he did.

Mr. Engh gave honest, frank, and straightforward answers and I have a lot of respect for him for so doing.  I find all this backtracking and rewriting rather distasteful and more than a little insulting to Engh.  He took the time to come and converse with members on this board and surely we shouldn't rewrite his posts for him.

Plus I think we are saying the same thing.  You just don't like the way I am saying it.   You wrote,  "Jim told me just yesterday that what he wants people to take from that quote is that he designs the best hole he can find...no more, no less."  

Generally, he'll get no argument from me on that.   It is essentially the same thing that the GolfWeek SuperNews article said and the same thing Engh wrote on this board.  From Engh:  

Some of these types of courses, by nature, do not allow for easy walking and I will always choose to create inspiring golf holes with the use of a cart, rather than mundain golf holes walking.

He creates the most inspiring golf holes he can find.  And if that means the course will not be walkable, then so be it.  He's not about to pass up an opportunity at another inspiring golf hole for the sake of making walkability.      

Surely this is where he is coming from, isn't it?   That is what he wrote.  That is what the article said.  That is even what you say above, although you leave off the obvious consequence of the approach -- inspiring golf holes will always trump walkability, unless the directive is different.

I don't get why this upsets you?  While I don't agree with Engh's approach, he is certainly not alone, and I am sure many here agree with him as well.  They have said as much again and again.   So why are you so afraid of this conclusion?    

That is what I don't get.  Why are you guys so intent on denying what Jim Engh readily admits?   Why constantly backtrack, rewrite, and revise when he seems pretty comfortable with the statements.  After all, he posted them and the seemed to be well thought out.  

Engh has been quite successful with his formula of building "inspiring" golf holes and incorporating in the "golf cart-path experience" into his designs.   So why hide it?   If you truly think it worthwhile, why not embrace it like he does, or at least like he has in the past.  

As for calling Engh, I am sure he has better things to do that speak with me.  I think I have a pretty good grasp of his approach and he seems very comfortable with the fact that some will disagree with him.   Besides,  it would be repetitious.  All I would be doing is confirming what he wrote.   Nonetheless if he wants to discuss it with me, he is a member of the site and can come on the board, or if would prefer he can shoot me an IM and I will get in touch at his convenience.   I'd be honored to speak with him and would convey that none of this is personal no matter anyone else tries to make of it.    

-----------------------------

Matt.  I  was just curious when your views about Engh's courses began to change, and what prompted the change.    I should have known that you would consider it some sort affront to your manhood to admit your views have changed.   Engh notes that parts of his approach have changed over the years.  Why aren't you man enough to admit that your opinions of his courses has evolved as well?  

I don't know why I bother, but I also have a similar question for you as Jay.    

Jim Engh readily admits just about everything you have fought so hard to deny.   Why keep denying what Engh readily admits and embraces?  

_____________________________

Andy, did you walk the course?   Matt didn't.   Did you see a single walker?  I didn't.    I have been told by members who play regularly that no one ever walks.  They laugh at the question because they think it would be too difficult.  I doubt many have even tried.  When I was there the club champion had is own special black golf cart.  Hardly a walker's culture or course.

Besides, even if it was barely walkable, did you see any indication that the walker was at all taken into consideration in the design?   Imagine designing a walking course where most of the greens required a hike out of a bowl at the end.   Imagine designing a walking course were many of the tees are elevated well above the surrounds.    It would be like requiring the golfer to walk the steps at a stadium, down one side, across the field, and then up the other, then do it again and again.    And that does not even include the in between walks some of which I recall to be quite substantial.

As I said above, if this was designed to be walking course then it failed miserably.

[Andy Troeger]

David,
You're reading too much into my comment. Its not a course many people would want to walk, even if it was encouraged. If I went back I wouldn't try to walk, but I think it could be done if someone wanted to try it.

[DMoriarty]

David,
You're reading too much into my comment. Its not a course many people would want to walk, even if it was encouraged. If I went back I wouldn't try to walk, but I think it could be done if someone wanted to try it.

Maybe, but I guess I just don't understand why some keep trying to make the case that Black Rock is a doable walk, especially since no one making the case has even dared try and walk it.    

Surely you agree that the course was not created in consideration of walkers, don't you?  And that it is would not accurately be described as a walking course?    If, so then don't get the significance or validity of claiming it is a doable walk.   Sure a mountain goat could do it, but would anyone in their right mind?  If they did, what impact would that have on the rest of the golfers?

Again, it seems that people are trying to defend the course on grounds that I doubt even Engh would put out there.

The better question is could it have been a walkable course?   I'm not sure, but it would be a heck of a lot closer to walkable if not for the jaunt down below the rocks for those three holes.  

[Matt_Ward]

David:

My views have not changed -- if you bother to really read my position back when Black Rock opened I did menton the highlights and lowlights for me. I have also added, what I consider to be, balanced comments on all the Engh courses I have played.

David, hello anybody home -- I have said as much that Engh has evolved with his design thoughts and with that I have evolved with my own thoughts on what he is producing now versus what he was producing from his earlier efforts.

[Garland Bayley]

David,

More power to you! However, I worry that eventually you will realize it does little good to reason with irrational people. In the mean time, you have my moral support.

[Andy Troeger]

David,
I'm making the case because I believe that I could put one foot in front of the other and walk the 18 holes at Black Rock. I thought that was really a simple concept, but perhaps not 

The rest of what you're saying seems accurate as well, but that's not my point...

[DMoriarty]

Shivas, I don't blame him either from a business perspective.  That is why I have such a hard time understanding all these apologists who claim that he does something other than this. 

[Kirk Gill]

I like Jim Engh and I enjoy the courses of his that I've played.

Does that make me an "apologist?

Neither Engh nor myself have anything to apologize for. Really good land for golf lends something to a course that is ineffable, and worthwile, and is the best of all possible ways. At the same time, some land is less worthy, and yet folks want to build courses on it anyway. Within a few miles of my house is Pradera by Engh, and a course now called Black Bear (once Canterberry) by Jeff Brauer. Both are really tough walks. REALLY tough walks. Walkable, perhaps, but not designed for walking. Perhaps both architects owe you an apology, but I'm not interested in one.

As to the topic of this thread, the bowl effect around some of Jim Engh's greens occur often enough that it merits mention. In most of these cases the green is benched into a hillside - in other words it's not like Engh is digging an ampitheatre to put the green in - he's placing a green into a hillside. I've found that the maintenance of that surrounding hillside has a lot to do with how that bowl affects play. The shorter the grass, the more the bowl effect gathers balls towards the green (although as was said above, the green is typically elevated above the area directly surrounding it, and so many balls do not carom off the bowl walls onto the green). However, if the bowl is left at rough height, balls stick up there, leaving tricky downhill chips.

I think a lot of designers do things over and over again, often enough to be called "templates." How many vaguely triangular greens are there with fronting bunkers right and left? How many oval greens are offset at angles to the approach with one bunker in front and one in back? And so forth. If someone says that Jim Engh doesn't put a lot of bowled greens on his courses, they are being disingenuous, in my opinion. And yet it is up to each golfer as to how much of a detriment this is.

[Sean_A]

I like Jim Engh and I enjoy the courses of his that I've played.

Does that make me an "apologist?

Neither Engh nor myself have anything to apologize for. Really good land for golf lends something to a course that is ineffable, and worthwile, and is the best of all possible ways. At the same time, some land is less worthy, and yet folks want to build courses on it anyway. Within a few miles of my house is Pradera by Engh, and a course now called Black Bear (once Canterberry) by Jeff Brauer. Both are really tough walks. REALLY tough walks. Walkable, perhaps, but not designed for walking. Perhaps both architects owe you an apology, but I'm not interested in one.

As to the topic of this thread, the bowl effect around some of Jim Engh's greens occur often enough that it merits mention. In most of these cases the green is benched into a hillside - in other words it's not like Engh is digging an ampitheatre to put the green in - he's placing a green into a hillside. I've found that the maintenance of that surrounding hillside has a lot to do with how that bowl affects play. The shorter the grass, the more the bowl effect gathers balls towards the green (although as was said above, the green is typically elevated above the area directly surrounding it, and so many balls do not carom off the bowl walls onto the green). However, if the bowl is left at rough height, balls stick up there, leaving tricky downhill chips.

I think a lot of designers do things over and over again, often enough to be called "templates." How many vaguely triangular greens are there with fronting bunkers right and left? How many oval greens are offset at angles to the approach with one bunker in front and one in back? And so forth. If someone says that Jim Engh doesn't put a lot of bowled greens on his courses, they are being disingenuous, in my opinion. And yet it is up to each golfer as to how much of a detriment this is.

Kirk

You are so right.  While I am not in the least enamoured with the idea cart golf no matter who designed it), its fine to play once in a while.  Its sort of like renting a car (ie joining a club}.  You have it for a week then give it back.  You aren't buying it so you don't worry too much about its positives and negatives other than to decide if you would ever rent that car again and perhaps you note the positives for the next time you do buy a car.  This is exactly how I look at Tobacco Road and I suspect, from looking at pictures, Engh's seriously hilly courses. 

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

Kirk,

I agree with most of what you wrote.   You don't owe anyone an apology and neither does Engh. That is why I am so amazed that so many continue to insist that he is something that not even he claims.  By the way, I think Pradera is supposed to be the new Engh-- more diverse.  Only Six bowled greens!  Some of the holes look fun in the photos.  To bad it wasn't made for walking. 

[Rob Rigg]

Kirk,

I do not think that DM is asking anyone to apologize for liking Engh courses - I did not read the thread that way.

My understanding from the debate is that DM cannot understand why JF is claiming that Engh does not design "cart golf" courses which it would indicate he is very comfortable doing when the terrain or opportunity to optimize holes, in his opinion, calls for it.

What is wrong with an architect having that opinion on course design? Most people will not avoid playing a great or well respected course because it is tough to walk. The walking crazies, like myself, will probably just walk anyways (possibly getting a lift on really long g/t transfers) while the majority of the golfing population will hop in a cart and be totally fine with it.

Even as a passionate walker, I can respect Engh for his views on golf course design based on the quotes that have been shared. And the reality of the situation, certainly in the US, is that land will be used for golf courses that is not ideal, or sometimes realistic, for walking. Jim clearly excels at designing courses on these difficult terrains (based on what Matt and others have said), while also being able to design courses that are more walking friendly if that is what the client calls for.

As a walker, what is unfortunate with Jim's apparent philosophy of design, is that he could have a potentially walkable site that he turns into "cart golf" because an opportunity to create an great hole could be missed.

Based on my understanding of what Doak did at RCCC, the course is fantastic and very walkable given the terrain that it lies upon.

In all likeliness, if Mr Engh was presented with a similar site, based on the quotes on this thread, he probably would have routed a "cart golf" course to avail of certain advantages in green to tee spacing and elevation change. He probably would have also been more focused on providing great views from the cart paths instead of routing them "out of the way" whenever possible.

In a situation like this, I think it is unfortunate that an architect would consider making a course a much more challenging to walk, simply to add one or two design elements.

Of course this is just my opinion and likely in the minority (maybe not on this site but certainly in general).

As someone who carries a Sunday Bag and six clubs, it is obvious that Jim enjoys to walk and I would guess appreciates the advantages of golf over "cart golf". Hopefully he has a chance to work on more walking friendly sites so those of us who are cart averse can enjoy his designs.

[Kirk Gill]

David - I enjoyed playing Pradera very much. I didn't keep a count of greens with bowled backgrounds, but I'd be surprised if the number is that high. I have some decent pictures of the course which I'll post one of these days. There's at least one seriously bowled green on a par three, but there's also a really nice crowned-green par three with no bunkers, no bowl, and it's very tough, with a terrific green.

As to walkability, there were several groups walking it the day I played. There are really only a couple of places where the design (as opposed to the terrain) specifically creates walkability issues - in particular I believe it is the 16th with a very elevated tee that is quite a hoof to get to.....if you choose to play from up there. There are several more easily accessible tees. And the point that Jeff Brauer built a nearby course that is in every way as much a cartball course as Pradera somehow gets lost here.

Mr. Rigg, I prefer to walk, and in fact I am a member of your walking golfer site. In many ways I support what you, or Melvyn Morrow, believe in. There is a reality in American golf that includes the cart, for many if not most golfers. It might not be the way it should be, but there it is. Some architects take that into account, and if that is reason to call them out on this site, then so be it. But Jim Engh isn't at all the only guy who does it, despite the fact that a thread can't be started on this site about the man's courses without it becoming the main subject, for whatever reason.

[DMoriarty]

Kirk,

I am not calling Jim Engh out.  I am calling out those who present his work other than how Mr. Engh himself has presented it.  There seems to be a strange inclination to minimize things like the "golf cart-path experience," the priority on inspiring holes over walkability, and his preference for concave fairways and greens, and I don't understand why what would be given that Mr. Engh has embraced all these principles.  


As for Pradera, I have no idea, but here is what Engh said in the feature interview:

Obviously it is important to have a variety of green styles. For example at Pradera we have six ‘bowled’ greens, six ‘plateau’ greens, and ’six benched’ greens.