....so much fuss over concrete...

[Garland Bayley]

Apparently the discussion group is now an evangelical organization.....

How so Joe?

[Joe Hancock]

It appears that the trend is try to convince people why their opinion is wrong, and that they should see things the "right" way....

In defense of all posters on this thread, I haven't read every single word, so I may be wrong.

Joe

[Melvyn Morrow]

“I'd have to question their golfing soul”. If I understand the comment correctly, let’s look at a serious alternative opinion from a committed walker.

Yes, I would not just question their golfing soul but their commitment to the game by accepting the use of a cart.

A walker, a true disciple of the faith, takes up carting, is like Christ given in to the Devil. Raising questions about the individual, asking if he has any balls, more than a shallow commitment and questionable loyalties to the Walking Game. Nothing short of total self-betrayal, no moral fibre and a complete rejection of ones life’s commitment to the real game of golf. It’s not as if one is accepting second best but openly and actively embracing the doctrine of the alternative faith ‘The Devils Doctrine’ of Cart Balling.

Modern life has and is creating modern man with no real backbone, the why bother getting involved mentality, yet the early Christians would stand fast, face the consequences of their faith, perish if required to defend their belief, than to just acquiesce to the bully boys, morons and peddlers of profit.

I think I have to question the golfing soul of those who use carts, not the other way round. The final answer will no doubt come from on high – no, not God but the Political and Religious Correct Nuts on GCA.com, who keep telling all of us poor mortals that we are wrong and must follow their ways to enlightenment.

Just a thought verging on an opinion that perhaps golf carts are the product of The Devil. 

Melvyn

[Patrick_Mucci]

“I'd have to question their golfing soul”. If I understand the comment correctly, let’s look at a serious alternative opinion from a committed walker.

Yes, I would not just question their golfing soul but their commitment to the game by accepting the use of a cart.

Melvin,

When you can't stand in a shower because the pain in your feet is so unbearable that you have to place a 6 inch thick foam rubber cushion on the shower floor so you can bathe, when you can't walk in your bare feet on a wooden, tile or any hard surface floor because the pain in your feet is unbearable and when your equilibrium becomes so disfunctional that you have to shower by leaning in the corner to prevent yourself from losing your balance and falling, and when you get constantly fatiqued to the degree that you have to stop and catch your breath every time you walk 20 to 50 feet, tell me how you question my committment to the game of golf when I continued to play, thanks to the use of a cart, despite those conditions ?

I hope everyone and their family's enjoy the gift of good health, but even the most athletic, robust men of steel succumb to the effects of ill health, one only has to look at Walter Payton to understand that no one is immune to infirmity.

Carts, like stents, by-passes, joint and organ replacements allow those who would otherwise have to quit the game they love, to continue to play and enjoy the game they love.

[paul cowley]

This thread is a good example of why I have little interestest in participating here anymore.

A great start by Jim [I would like to cut and paste with your permission], about real world golf design....followed by a bunch of cyber space little dicks's  [you know who you are] comments.

Thanks Ran, and I will stay in touch.

[Ben Sims]

As a young member of the DG, I was on a furious pace of posting and "opinionating" for a long while.  Then I tapered off.  This discussion--aside from a formal training course, a wedding, and moving into a new home--is one of the reasons why.  The amount of vitriolic and hypocritical speech spewed by me and others is simply appalling.  

This is the type of thread also makes me want to subscribe more and more to Mr. Paul's Big World theory.  Hell, it's not theory anymore.  Because despite my views on the future of the golf business, and despite Moriarty's, Bayley's, and Mel's views on walking; Mr. Engh continues to get work, and people continue to play his courses.

Guys.  This thread needs to die a rapid, violent death.  

By the way.  I agree with Clint and Mucci in regards to giving it all up to stay off a cart.  I'd play any of the great courses I played this year with a cart if offered so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

...
If someone gave up the game because they couldn't walk the golf course, but, could play with the use of a cart,  I'd have to question their golfing soul.
...

As we all know there are Scottish people that consider walking such an integral part of the game that they question someone's soul if they take a cart to play at golf instead of moving on to other things.

When someone reaches 70 and is physically limited, and younger women are no longer available, what do the Scots suggest you move on to ?

Your perspective is your perspective. Their perspective is their perspective. I believe each is entitled.

I believe mine is more reasoned.
Besides, many, if not most, of the Scots I've observed play with pull carts/trolleys.

But the the issue really is about those who can walk, but choose to take a cart

That's an entirely different matter, and there, I'd agree with the Scots.

Although, the Scots rarely play 36 a day for a few days when it's humid, 102 degrees under an unrelenting sun, without a zephyr in the air.

and enable Mr Engh, now isn't it?

The first time I played Sherwood (CA), I was shocked by the walks ( IN SPIKES) from green to tee.
Subsequently, I've learned that due to the site and the use of the site, green to tee distances are unwieldy to unmanageable, to put it politely.

However, the home sites were quite expensive.

[DMoriarty]

Jay, you are way out of line.  My post to Patrick was no slam on Jim Engh or anyone else. You’ve taken a leap well beyond logic.   And your insults are unfounded and uncalled for, again.  I’ll assume you are just having another bad day, but in the future please refrain from lecturing me how to behave.  As your post demonstrates, you are not the one to give advice on that subject.  

Everyone Else,

Rather than take Jay’s word for this garbage, I’d appreciate it if you’d look at my posts and decide for yourself.  Aside from this post and the one above that set Jay off, I believe I have posted three times in these five pages.   In the first I thanked Mr. Engh for posting.   In the second I provided my understanding of his position (I think this was important because it has been the focus of much of our discussion) and asked a few questions.  In the third I asked Garland to send me the USGA pamphlet and joked with him about Montanans telling North Dakotan jokes.  

I guess maybe the third one was arguable offensive, so a suppose I owe an apology:   If any sheep were upset by my comments above, I sincerely apologize.  

For those who see fit to draw conclusions without bothering to read the thread, I've copied these three posts below, and the fourth is just above.  I’d appreciate knowing whether and where I was rude or disrespectful to Mr. Engh in these posts.  Thanks.

Mr. Engh,

Thanks for the post and for your past posts and threads as well. Having just read them recently, I am impressed with your honest and informative comments.  I especially enjoyed the thread on whether “natural” should be the ultimate goal of golf design, and may even try to resurrect it at some point.   To my mind it was a great example of the kind of questions we should consider more often.   While I still don't think I agree with much of your approach to course design, I understand it better after reading your thoughtful comments.  

As for your post today it is again refreshingly honest and frank, and you have my appreciation and respect for again addressing the criticisms levied against you.  Lord knows with the level of success you have attained, you don't owe me or anyone else any sort of explanation.  So thanks for humoring us.

I hope to address the substance of your post soon, as time allows.

Thanks again,

David.

____________________________

Jay,  

Mr. Engh is an able communicator, so instead of trying to spin his words why don't you just let him speak for himself?

My Second Post:

Mr. Engh,

I’ve been thinking about your post, which to my mind touched on many of the most important issues facing golf and golf design today.  Thanks again for posting  it.   Unfortunately, I find myself with so many questions and concerns that I am not really even sure how to address them in a coherent and cohesive manner.  It may be that we are better off breaking down some of these issues into separate threads, so that we can really flesh them out.

For now though I think I'll try and make sure that those of us discussing this are actually on the same page about just one basic issue.   If you’d like to participate in the conversation that would be great, but if not I won’t hold it against you.  I am sure that others won’t mind jumping in and offering their comments.  

Designing for Walking.  

Over the years, much of our discussion about your courses has been about whether or not you design your courses for walking and whether your courses are indeed walkable.  Hopefully your post will allow us to put this discussion to bed.   I understand that the following examples may be just three scenarios on a continuum, but hope they accurately represent your views:

1. On severe sites, walking is not even a consideration.
On the truly mountainous sites like Sanctuary, Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon, the decision was not whether walking is reasonable, but more to the point, is this project even possible to build on this land. At this point, riding vs. walking is a mute point.   The good news is, if it is possible it will be very spectacular.

2. On moderate sites (where a walking course might be suitable for about 1/2 the golfers) walking is still not much of a consideration.
When dealing with moderate land upon which it might be "possible" to create a walking course, I have the following decision; should I create a course that is very much less exciting/fun but is potentially walkable for 50% of the players? Or should I decide that this will be a mostly cart course and create a much more powerful golfing experience and sales engine for the project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decision. Do the better course.

I suppose that one could argue that the resulting “better course” might happen to end up walkable for some hiker-types.  But, if so, this would be more by happenstance than design, wouldn’t it?   At the very least, isn’t the deck stacked heavily against the course ending up reasonably walkable?

3. On a flattish piece of land “the factor of walking is a much bigger consideration.”   For example at Awarii Dunes, the course you are designing in Nebraska:
I have set a paramount on walking. Cart paths will be green to tee only and consist of a mixture of native sand and small gravel. Tee placements have been located for ease of access from the previous green.  

I’m glad to hear that that you will build for walkers there. It makes sense, especially if the client is so inclined.  But I am having a little trouble understanding why flattish land is treated differently from a design perspective.  Most golfers will still ride.  And the best holes you can find will not necessarily be the same holes that would be most conducive to walking, will they?  So why don’t the same considerations apply to flattish sites as apply to moderate sites?  Instead of trying to put the tee boxes next to greens, why not put them on better, higher ground even if a bit further away, to create the better golf hole?   In short, why choose walkers over “the better course” just because the land is flattish?

One possibility is that your approach is the same on all sites, but there just aren’t a lot of opportunities to build powerful, inspiring, and spectacular holes on flattish sites.  I guess another possibility is that you attach a much greater value to the traditional golfing experience in certain settings.   If so I am curious as to why?  Or perhaps it is some of both or something I am not considering?    

At Awarii Dunes you plan to place your tees for ease of access from the green, and don’t plan on building continuous cart paths.   Have you designed any other courses with the tees placed for easy of access and without continuous cart paths?    Which of your courses have you set out to make easily walkable for most golfers?   Have you designed any courses on a relatively flat site where walking was not a primary consideration?

Perhaps an example will help explain what I am asking.  You built the course adjacent to the CSU practice facility, Harmony Golf Club.  I haven't had the pleasure of playing there, but apparently it is a fairly flat piece of land, isn't it?   If so then it is probably walkable for some, but from photos and representations I’ve seen, I am having trouble understanding how it was designed with walkers in mind.   For example, on quite a few of the holes it doesn’t look as if there is any way  easy way for the walker to even get to the fairway or green, except for some roundabout trek on the cart path.  For example aren't there some water crossings where the bridge looks to be well away from the fairway.  These roundabout treks are tough on walkers even on flat sites; carts can get navigate them much faster.  Was the course one of those specifically designed for walking?   Do golfers there actually walk?   How about the college team?  
_________________

Whatever you do with "flattish" sites I hope it is fair to say that, on the moderate and severe land, you aren’t just building cart-ball courses because it is a bad site.  In fact, I would be very surprised if you considered these to be “bad” sites at all.   Challenging certainly, but I doubt bad.  It seems like you see these sites as great opportunities to build powerful, inspiring, and spectacular golf holes in a unique setting, and that might be impossible at more mundane sites.   At least that is how I read the following passage and similar statements.  

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 mundane golf holes walking.

I hope this is a good place to stop.   I haven’t gotten into most of the issues that your post brings to mind and I haven't even touched on many of your design features that I have questioned in the past, but there has been so much conflict about whether and when you design for walkers, that I thought I'd try to make sure I am understanding you before I move on.  

Thanks again for contributing to the conversation.   I think you are very much in the majority regarding your views on carts and "the realities of the profession" and it is nice for me to read your frank and articulate comments on this issue and others.

My Third Post:

Gaylord Barley,

I don't care who is correct, but If you have a digital copy, could you send me one as well?  I've looked a bit but haven't found one online.

Also, since Mr. Engh is from North Dakota and you are from pretty close to what we used to call West Dakota (eastern Montana) do you think it would lighten the mood around here  if I shared my favorite grade school North Dakotan joke?  Or would it be seen as another inappropriate attack?

(For those of you not fortunate enough to grow up in The Last Best Place, North Dakotan jokes are about all Montanans have to entertain themselves on those long winter nights.  Except for the  sheep, that is.)

That's it.   When writing the posts I was sincere and my comments were made with great respect for Mr. Engh and his willingness to humor us at all.   Disrespect and disagreement are two different things, but apparently some here don't understand the distinction.   But I guess I should have known that already.

[Patrick_Mucci]

P.S.

I walked 18 on Saturday and 36 on Sunday.

Unfortunately, I paid the price on Monday.

Has anyone walked Cascata ?

In the summer ?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Patrick

I would refer you to my post #106 from yesterday. I understand pain way more than you may think. I also understand the strength and pull of golf as much as the next golfer, perhaps more so.

Melvyn

Back to Jim’s post and my original post on his subject in which I asked a question or two, but never answered by Jim. Instead of some being so full of themselves on a DG site, perhaps they should ask what is the point of someone posting a topic then not bothering to input again on that topic when questions are asked or bound to be asked.

Too many, to ride or walk is of no importance to them, they just play and enjoy the experience. Others for a variety of reasons dislike the cart, some bother to put forward very valid, deeply sincere and honest opinions on that subject to the Discussion Group. Yet with limited Membership of 1500, the GCA.com Discussion Group has well known names submitting topics and comments for what I would have thought have been the purpose of discussion.

ALL MEMBERS HAVE A RIGHT TO AN OPINION AND THANKS TO RAN & BEN, THE FACILITY TO VOICE SAID OPINIONS. It is meant to be a discussion group, so expect discussions. Stay and get involved, however if strongly and unfairly verbally attacked or the victim of unpleasantness (not just a disagreement) then I fully sympathize and you should do what you believe you must.

As for trying to build courses in – lets just call it ‘Land Not Fit For Purpose’ which from the initial concept required carts (perhaps for the long treks between Greens & Tees), expect some reaction if it is still going to be sold as a Golf Course. Golf was never about long walks or certainly not long rides between Greens and the next Tee. Originally, the Tees & Greens were on top of each other.

If the designers and developers of these projects want them to be golf courses how can that be if they make statements as Jim did and I highlighted it in my reply#34
The good news is, if it is possible it will be very spectacular. When dealing with moderate land upon which it might be "possible" to create a walking course, I have the following decision; should I create a course that is very much less exciting/fun but is potentially walkable for 50% of the players? Or should I decide that this will be a mostly cart course and create a much more powerful golfing experience and sales engine for thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional, consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.

IMHO and according to Garland the USGA also do not consider this type of game, Golf. I still do not understand that if forgetting carts acting as ones legs how can the game itself offer a’ very much less exciting/fun but is potentially walkable for 50% of the players? Or should I decide that this will be a mostly cart course and create a much more powerful golfing experience’. Do these courses not have the same Tees, Fairways, Greens be it for walking or carts. Is the powerful experience down to just the views plus the challenge of driving/riding between holes? If so Jim’s statement is totally misleading as being generated by the trek between Greens & Tees and not the playability of the course design. IMHO, I believe my post #34 was a fair request for information and understanding of Cart Balling. However, it was blown out of all proportion by singular minded individuals. Things never seem to change, do they?

Melvyn

[C. Squier]

IMHO, I believe my post #34 was a fair request for information and understanding of Cart Balling. However, it was blown out of all proportion by singular minded individuals. Things never seem to change, do they?

Melvyn

If you'd stop ranting for a second, you'd notice that both myself and David Tepper gave you sincere answers/opinions in our responses, #98 and #104 respectively.

I also believe it would be physically impossible to walk some courses in under 4.5 hours.  Granted, those in carts can't get it done either all the time....but at least it's possible.  Pace of play, IMO, is a very legit reason on mountain courses to be cart-only.  In case nobody has highlighted it yet, in most cases it is impossible to travel in a straight line from the tee to green on many of these courses.  Some require very long side-tracked journeys because of the difficult terrain they are built on.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Clint

Is it reasonable to call it ranting? Yes, you and David did suggest some answers but from #34 to #98, I believe others did more than rant.

It’s indicative of the slow round of 4.5 hours plus as you specified, I suppose that many here now mirror their speed of play with commenting on this site.

What is most shocking is that you accept and tolerate 4.5 to 5 hour rounds, even on a cart, God what in Hells name are you playing over there Marathon Cart Ball? Can a game of Golf take that long, in fact should a game of golf be allowed to take that long. Well only you guys can answer that.

Melvyn

PS. I always find it funny how some feel I rant, clearly freedom of speech is only allowed when you and your friends seem to permit it, that’s usually only when you speak.  We are all equal but some of you are more equal than the rest of us. Clint, spending too much time in the sun, well you would if you take 4-5 hours per round even when on you carts.

[A.G._Crockett]

If you'd stop ranting for a second, you'd notice that both myself and David Tepper gave you sincere answers/opinions in our responses, #98 and #104 respectively.


[/quote]

Clint,
You're right, of course, but this thread was ONLY about 3 individuals ranting pages ago.  They weren't seeking information, just a pulpit.  Engh stated his points clearly and correctly, and those have been expounded and expanded upon long since by others.  I think it is safe to say that none of the three are going to have eureka moments and acknowledge that:
     a. there are courses that are simply better if they are less walkable, unfortunately, due to the available terrain
     b. that most golfers in 2009 don't especially want to walk anyway (with many of the 1500 on this site as notable exceptions, IMO.)
     c. that there are golfers who, though willing, are unable to walk for one reason or another but still love the game
     d. that developers and housing often drive routing, rather than architecture alone
     e. that there is a market system at work in the golf business, rather than simply "the game"
     f.  that architects are responsible to the person(s) paying them, rather than to someone's notion of the purity of the game.

All of this and more has been pointed out over and over to these three, and yet they continue to rant and drive others who know far, far more about the subject (and profession) of GCA away from the site.  Unfortunate, but the simple fact is that an open mind is required for education to occur.  You tried; the failure is theirs, not yours.

[Dan King]

 A.G._Crockett writes:
   a. there are courses that are simply better if they are less walkable, unfortunately, due to the available terrain
     b. that most golfers in 2009 don't especially want to walk anyway (with many of the 1500 on this site as notable exceptions, IMO.)
     c. that there are golfers who, though willing, are unable to walk for one reason or another but still love the game
     d. that developers and housing often drive routing, rather than architecture alone
     e. that there is a market system at work in the golf business, rather than simply "the game"
     f.  that architects are responsible to the person(s) paying them, rather than to someone's notion of the purity of the game.

They want all this ... and they want to hold themselves up in the same company with people who design golf courses. Sorry, you don't get it all. A choice was made to design cartball and now they also want to be considered golf courses. They are not. They are cartball.

They have every right to design cartball courses, and I have every right to consider them as not golf courses. Ain't it cool how we all have rights?

Cheers,
Dan King

They'd have to carry me out here before they would get me in a golf cart.
 --Arnold Palmer (when carts were permitted on the Senior Tour for the first time, 1985)

[C. Squier]

Clint

Is it reasonable to call it ranting? Yes, you and David did suggest some answers but from #34 to #98, I believe others did more than rant.

It’s indicative of the slow round of 4.5 hours plus as you specified, I suppose that many here now mirror their speed of play with commenting on this site.

What is most shocking is that you accept and tolerate 4.5 to 5 hour rounds, even on a cart, God what in Hells name are you playing over there Marathon Cart Ball? Can a game of Golf take that long, in fact should a game of golf be allowed to take that long. Well only you guys can answer that.

Melvyn

PS. I always find it funny how some feel I rant, clearly freedom of speech is only allowed when you and your friends seem to permit it, that’s usually only when you speak.  We are all equal but some of you are more equal than the rest of us. Clint, spending too much time in the sun, well you would if you take 4-5 hours per round even when on you carts.

Melvyn, you're making things up.  Nowhere did I say I accept, nor tolerate 4.5 hour rounds.  A 4.5 hour+ round is torture for me.  I much prefer to walk as well.  Stereotyping me into your vision of US golf is both unfair and flat incorrect.  You can dislike me without distorting the truth.  That's perfectly acceptable in my mind.

What I did say is that the routing necessitated by the extreme topography would make it impossible to walk in under 4.5 hours.  A person couldn't physically couldn't do it.  By myself, I routinely walk my club in 2:45 without any delay.  I'm a fast player, one that you'd probably find that played lock-step with anyone on your side of the pond.  But with the terrain dictating it impossible to traverse the course in a 100% forward moving fashion, it would be impossible for ME or YOU to walk it in that time frame.  You can find yourself having to walk a few hundred extra yards on a hole because of the terrain.  That adds time to a walker.  Plain and simple.  It's hard to describe how the extreme terrain affects walkability to someone who has never seen it.  Unfortunately, you seem to deep into your own opinion to allow that thought for even one second.  

[Norbert P]

A blurb from a Colorado Law periodical

"June 18, 2008
Sand Traps and Ponds Aren’t the Only Hazards
Those little vehicles that buzz around golf courses as well as parks, sports fields and public recreational areas might be a cost-saving alternative to larger vehicles, but a pair of studies released this week suggests they do have their risks. The numbers of injuries have been increasing as more people rely on golf carts for transportation off golf courses. While there were about 5,772 injuries in 1990, the number more than doubled to 13,411 in 2006. Over the period studied, the researchers counted injuries in almost 150,000 people ages 2 months to 96 years.

The research found that over a four-year period, nearly 50,000 people were hurt in accidents involving golf carts. One of the studies, by the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said about 1,000 Americans are hurt on golf carts every month. Males aged 10 to 19 and people over 80 had the highest injury rates. About half of the injuries occur on golf courses or in other sports venues, such as football stadiums. The rest are typically on streets or residential property.

Part of the problem is that the carts are faster than they used to be. But they are also being used in ways they were not necessarily intended for and are carrying people — like children — they should not, the study said.

Many of the injuries were caused by falls, which can occur at speeds as low as 11 miles per hour when the cart turns, the study said. And newer carts can hit 25 m.p.h. They often lack safety equipment, the majority of the carts in use do not have seat belts. Furthermore, the lack of front brakes makes the vehicles prone to fishtail, the study said.

The most frequent accidents result in injury when passengers fall out or when riders are hurt when the carts tip over."


Posted by Linda Chalat

[Melvyn Morrow]

Clint

Am I not just doing what you do to me?

As for dislike you, I do not dislike you, Jim, Pat, AG or any others on this site. I am disappointed with all your opinions of me but that is down to each of you. You have never met me, so I sometimes find it difficult to understand the attitudes. You seem to react to what some believe is a tone in my posts however, I feel it is like describing a glass of beer on the table. I say its half-full looking on hopefully the brighter side of all of you, yet you look at me and seem to say a glass half empty, well so be it, problem when you do that you automatically pick up on the negative side of all comments, perhaps missing the real meaning. But hay, that’s life and it is just too short to act like a Prima Donna or is that a Doner Kebab. 

Melvyn

[C. Squier]

Clint

Am I not just doing what you do to me?

As for dislike you, I do not dislike you, Jim, Pat, AG or any others on this site. I am disappointed with all your opinions of me but that is down to each of you. You have never met me, so I sometimes find it difficult to understand the attitudes. You seem to react to what some believe is a tone in my posts however, I feel it is like describing a glass of beer on the table. I say its half-full looking on hopefully the brighter side of all of you, yet you look at me and seem to say a glass half empty, well so be it, problem when you do that you automatically pick up on the negative side of all comments, perhaps missing the real meaning. But hay, that’s life and it is just too short to act like a Prima Donna or is that a Doner Kebab. 

Melvyn

Whatever.

Please respond to what I wrote about golf course architecture.  I'd rather not have to type my response to YOUR questions again, seeing as though I've done that now several times and have had no response to them. 

[Kirk Gill]

They have every right to design cartball courses, and I have every right to consider them as not golf courses. Ain't it cool how we all have rights?

There it is.

And certainly folks have the right to feel differently. And act on those beliefs. And stop wasting time castigating those who have the temerity to disagree. Truly, are we out to convince each other of anything on here? Is anyone open to their mind being changed?

We're not talking about ivory towers, we're ultimately talking about art and commerce. As to the commerce, the market will decide. As to art, well, to each his own.

"But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads"

                                                                   Camus

[Steve Lang]

  so much fuss over concrete... what a shame that golf continues to test the limits of sustainable development in the 21st century   what will the future archeologists make of all those strange path forms scattered in such varied locales?

I've been walk-balling since 1961 and hope to get quite a few more rounds of walk-ball and cart-ball in..

[Norbert P]

 If somebody buys a golf cart or rents one rote, they have "jumped the shark".

But if you are gonna jump the shark, you may as well do it in Harley style . . .

  

   1983 Harley Davidson Golf Cart

[Rich Goodale]

Golf while riding in a cart is still a hell of a lot better than no golf at all!

I may or may not make it through this latest well started but now infernal thread but thanks, Pat, for that bit of common sense.

PS--great starting post, Jim.  I hope as I wade forward the rest of the field will start trying to think about and carry on a conversation about what you said, but my hopes are not high....

[Jud_T]

main reason to walk (and why you boys on the other side of the pond get your shorts in a twist)-not to be seen in one of these!:


http://www.streetrodproductions.com/karts.php

or this!:

http://www.luxurycarts.com/images/custom_carts/h2_red_front.jpg

[Rob Rigg]

Rich,

There are a lot of good questions within the thread for Jim to answer - he'll just need a magnifying class and/or an intern to find them for him which is a shame.

Gents,

This would be a lot easier if we all accepted that people like to play the game differently - walking, walking/carting, cart golf only - let's agree to disagree, respect each others opinions and get back to the GCA/logistic/theory/design aspect of the conversation that Jim presented in the first post.

I am still very curious to know what the "create a walkable course or create a 'mostly cart golf course'" threshold is for Jim?

Is it based on the number of opportunities to incorporate "outside aesthetics" such as vistas, is it based on the number of opportunities to incorporate interesting features or terrain on the site that may be "away" from the core of the routing, etc.?

Is there ever a situation where building a "carts only" course would not have resulted in a "better" course in your opinion? Thus resulting in a good walking/carting optoin course.

[cary lichtenstein]

This thread is a good example of why I have little interestest in participating here anymore.

A great start by Jim [I would like to cut and paste with your permission], about real world golf design....followed by a bunch of cyber space little dicks's  [you know who you are] comments.

Thanks Ran, and I will stay in touch.

me too