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

[Rob Rigg]

Jay,

Don't put words in my mouth - I have NEVER claimed that a walkable course means some guy wearing depends can walk it. Are you out of your mind? I did say that at a certain point a course becomes unwalkable and turns into cart golf. Does it not?

That is why on TWG.com there are "levels" of walkability - Easy, Manageable, Tough and Essentially Unwalkable - Most courses are walkable provided they let you do it and you are determined to do so (and fit).

There is however, a line between a "cart golf" course and a "walkable" course - that for me is a Red - where everyone will walk the course because it was designed to be "essentially unwalkable" - at least at an Orange you have a choice, although that is probably the line where 90% of golfers will choose to take a cart.

Since I have not won "powerball" or inherited a ton of cash - which would allow me to play and rate every course in the country - I have asked the Society members and the public to assist the site in rating courses for walkability - if a course is rated improperly then my hope is that someone will see it and correct the rating. This has happened a few times already. Thanks for providing your input on the Redlands rating - I will look into it - as you can imagine, assistance is much appreciated as this is a fairly daunting project.

The goal of the "walkability ratings" is to let the public know what type of walk to expect if they play a course. This is a service to ALL golfers, not just those who only like to walk.

Jay,

Read my posts - I have asked Jim several questions about his decision making process and look forward to reading his responses.

Again - who are you battling against here - Jim has stated that in certain situations he will build a "cart golf" course as opposed to a "walkable course" because 90% of the consumers will be taking a cart anyways.

What is wrong with building a "cart golf" course if an architect believes it is 1) the only option or 2) will maximize a challenging property that may not be walkable anyways? And if the architect builds a course that is unwalkable then what is wrong with calling it a cart golf course? That is what cart golf is!

What is the "wrong conclusion" that you are refering to here?

I would hate to show up at a course thinking it is walkable to find out that 1) I am not allowed to or 2) it has never been done before

Jay,

As a reminder, I have NEVER stated that Jim is a "cart golf" only designer so don't try and put those words in my mouth along with the incorrect statement you made about my thoughts on what makes a course walkable.

[Jason Topp]

Greetings Boys - sorry for my recent lack of communication. Just want to weigh in on a topic from a little while ago.

 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.

Thanks Jim

Thanks for your post.  It is always nice to get a fresh perspecitive based on real experience.

I have never played any of your courses but I am somewhat surprised by the assertion that cart paths between holes "create a much more powerful golf experience."  I question how often that is the case on otherwise walkable terrain.

While I understand that it is a matter of degree, I have always assumed that cart paths between holes were generally for the purpose of accomodating housing rather than for finding the best golf holes.  Often I have taken long cart rides to play a hole down a tunnel of housing.  When I have found powerful golf holes after a long cart ride, it generally has been on severe terrain that would not be walked except by a nut.

Do you have some examples of courses that turned out to be very interesting, but would have been less so had they been designed to accomodate walking.
  

Not to put words in Mr. Engh's mouth, but as I read it the statements you quote were predicated on the site being mountainous or rolling terrain, and the question was whether to create the best possible course or a "walking" course.  He referenced Sanctuary, Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon as courses that were either to be cart courses or not built at all.  Had those courses been built so that all could walk, they might well be far less interesting than they are.

A.G.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation.  My quote did not refer to mountanous courses, but rather courses on sites of intermediate terrain that could be walkable.  On such sites, he suggests that there is a trade off between quality golf holes and walkability.  Please see the green language above.

[Jay Flemma]

Robb:  You wrote:

"Again - who are you battling against here - Jim has stated that in certain situations he will build a "cart golf" course as opposed to a "walkable course" because 90% of the consumers will be taking a cart anyways. "

He never said he would build a cart ball course...it's others here who use that term and put it in his mouth.

I know you have your colorcoded system...but I went through your site and think you dont emply it enough...there are plenty of courses you mark as green that are tougher walks than just an easy stroll...and other courses that you have i red that are somewhat beasier than that...but that's beside the point.  The argument is against the perjorative term "cart golf" when it is misused.

[A.G._Crockett]

Greetings Boys - sorry for my recent lack of communication. Just want to weigh in on a topic from a little while ago.

 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.

Thanks Jim

Thanks for your post.  It is always nice to get a fresh perspecitive based on real experience.

I have never played any of your courses but I am somewhat surprised by the assertion that cart paths between holes "create a much more powerful golf experience."  I question how often that is the case on otherwise walkable terrain.

While I understand that it is a matter of degree, I have always assumed that cart paths between holes were generally for the purpose of accomodating housing rather than for finding the best golf holes.  Often I have taken long cart rides to play a hole down a tunnel of housing.  When I have found powerful golf holes after a long cart ride, it generally has been on severe terrain that would not be walked except by a nut.

Do you have some examples of courses that turned out to be very interesting, but would have been less so had they been designed to accomodate walking.
  

Not to put words in Mr. Engh's mouth, but as I read it the statements you quote were predicated on the site being mountainous or rolling terrain, and the question was whether to create the best possible course or a "walking" course.  He referenced Sanctuary, Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon as courses that were either to be cart courses or not built at all.  Had those courses been built so that all could walk, they might well be far less interesting than they are.

A.G.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation.  My quote did not refer to mountanous courses, but rather courses on sites of intermediate terrain that could be walkable.  On such sites, he suggests that there is a trade off between quality golf holes and walkability.  Please see the green language above.

Jason,
I don't want to quibble and I did make a mistake in my first post by referencing three courses incorrectly. 

The language of the original post, which you highlighted in green, implied that the terrain was not flat, but moderate and that a walking course would be "possible".  I take that to mean "possible but tough", and those are courses that most golfers don't walk, ever.  (Hell, most golfers won't walk across the parking lot with their clubs after they ride 18 holes on the flattest course in America!)  Engh's contention is that you go ahead and built the best golf course possible, in which walking might be sacrificed for quality and the sales engine; he believes that 90% of the players will be riding anyway, so it becomes an easy choice.

I don't think he is talking about flat sites inside subdivisions that we see turned into cart-only courses everyday in order to sell more houses, which you and I both hate, or so I would assume.  I think when he uses the term "moderate" to describe the terrain, he is talking about something else entirely, and I shouldn't have used Sanctuary and the others as examples; they would be extreme terrain where walking is out of the question.  But to a guy who has built courses on sites like those, "rolling" and "moderate" might well mean something a little more extreme than usual.

BTW, I'm a dedicated walker, and am dismayed by mandatory carts and unwalkable courses.  I am equally dismayed by the minute % of golfers that I see walking even on courses that are easy walks by any standard; I think Engh's guess of 10% is much too high.

[Tony Weiler]

Thanks, Jim.  Great post. 

I think the terrain has so much to do for it.  I love to walk, but the Engh course I play, Hawktree, that's hard to do.  The elevation changes dictate it, as does the walk "out" of most holes.  Could that have been different, I suppose so, but it wouldn't have been as good a hole.  I love the walk, but I know many, many who love to ride.  Great courses don't have to  be one or the other, like HT.  Another example I can think of that I've played was C and C's We Ko Pa Saguaro.  We rode it, but I could see how it was designed to be walked.  Big difference is that is some pretty flat land.  Again, thanks Jim. 

[Rob Rigg]

Quote from Jim:

"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."

Jay - Please help me out here - I am trying to understand what you are saying, I am not trying to be an AH about this - Are you saying that a "mostly cart course" in Jim's words is not a "cart golf" course?

Jim said that in a 50% walkable situation 90% of golfers are likely to take carts - and I certainly believe him. That is in a 50% walkable situation. So by building the "mostly cart course" it becomes a 100% cart course which is "cart golf". How is this faulty logic? Do you prefer the term "mostly cart course" to "cart golf course"?

Where is the putting words in someone's mouth here - tell me where I am not representing what Jim said?

Let's continue:

- the land in questions is moderate and "possible" to create a walking course

- the architect must decide to make a less exciting or fun course that is walkable for 50% of the players (we'll call it an orange) - or a "mostly cart course" that is a better experience in the architects eyes (and a better sales engine for the client) which would be a red.

- Jim then says that, again, if a course is 50/50 you will likely get 90% of golfers riding - so he makes the "mostly cart course" which is an easy decision in his mind because it is a "better course" - I can understand where Jim is coming from and never said that I couldn't.

Again - Jay - In terms of the ratings - I do not fly all over the country playing these courses - the site is a low budget affair with a part-time staff of one (but a growing membership - hollah!) - the ratings are based on the public who are generous enough to take the time and fill out the course listing form and rate the courses. There will be inaccuracies at an early stage - that is when the standard deviation will be at its greatest because the sample size is small at this point. Over time, the standard deviation will tighten up and the ratings will become more accurate. You seem to have played a lot of courses, I would welcome your feedback, especially on the courses that are "wrong". The Walkability Ratings are a WORK IN PROGRESS and not everyone will agree with every rating.

[SB]

Jim,

Thanks for your insightful comments.  You seem to be under the slightly misguided assumption that the people here realize that golf courses are, in fact, a business.  Customers should be required to pass a chopsticks test before being allowed in the restaurant.

[Tim Pitner]

I know he wasn't, ROb, but I am speaking to those who seek to demonize Jim and spread the false rumor that he throws walkers under the bus...and stop that false rumor that he said "he designs for the 90% in carts" when he never said that or meant that at all.

Jay,

Count me among those confused.  Mr. Engh writes that when faced with a choice of finding a better hole (in his view, of course) or ensuring walkability in a routing, he sacrifices walkability because if a course is walkable for 50%, 90% will take a cart.  So, yes, it can be said that he designs for the 90% in carts.  That doesn't mean he isn't thinking about the quality of the hole (as he sees it); it means that he's very prepared to sacrifice walkability, especially on some of the difficult sites on which he's worked.  So, I really don't understand the "false rumor" allegation.  (P.S. is there a more tired phrase than "throw [blank] under the bus"?)

Jim, thanks for the post.  

[DMoriarty]

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?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

Many thanks for your short article, extremely straight to the point and honest.

Nevertheless reading your post, I feel it is more inline with a Scottish lament or an epitaph on the Great Game of Golf.

I speak only for myself although no doubt, the political correct Golfing Brigade  on GCA.com will chime in with their waffle and condemnations, but then that is the price we pay for freedom of speech. Pity that freedom does not always extend to Walkers on a Golf course.

I am labelled as a traditional golfer by many which seems to allows them to believe that it gives them the right to ridicule my thoughts, opinions and to introduce some of the most unbelievable comments along the lines that I should stick with Hickory shafted clubs and the old Gutta balls (well, some  words to that effect). I view myself as a Golfer, I honour the game as it was taught to me and why I have played it ever since. By definition being, a Golfer (IMHO) means that I walk. I do not use Caddies, nor am I keen on carts (although I did try them when they first appeared here in the UK - having tried and disliked the remoteness of experience/feel, I have never used them since). I also do not use distance information apart from the scorecard, I never use distance books, markers or electronic aids, believing that we, the golfers have that ability to judge distance given to us at birth.  So, I view them as outside aids, as is a cart which keeps a golfer refreshed by not walking, having said that you would think it would actually help some golfers but you would be wrong, the real result is to further isolate the golfer from the actual game of golf.

So having given you an idea of where I am coming from, it probably will not surprise you when I say that I feel that every Architect, designer or course planners first duty to the Game (not the clients) is to honour the basic tradition of the game, that is to walk. Not to offer that simple basic Human Rights of Golfing leaves the owner/developer and architect open to their commitment to the Game of Golf. With out walking you are NOT PLAYING GOLF, nor are you really designing a Golf Course. What do you call it Cart Ball Golf, so the course should be declared a Cart Ball Golf Course.

I hope you realise this is my own personal opinion and that I am not judging the quality of your courses or cart ball courses as I have no experience of the American game. Nevertheless, I would like to make my final comment based upon you statement (please note the highlighted lines)

From my perspective, I often times do not get the opportunity to choose whether walking is an option. We are typically given  mountainous and very rolling terrain type sites. On the truly mountainous sites like Sanctuary, Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon, the decision was not whether walking is resonable, 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. 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.

Now, if it is a flattish piece of land that I have been given, the factor of walking is a much bigger consideration. For example, at our new project in the snad hills of Nebraska, called Awarii Dunes, 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 am very pleased to be able to take this position, still I suspect that we will have a significant amount of cart use. Unfortunately, that is the way things are.

Please excuse my ignorance, but why should a golf course design be less exciting/fun if walking or much more powerful experience for carts. Sorry I just cannot get my head around that statement. It seems to imply that golfing with a cart is a different game to Golf and that your design takes into account that underlining fact, yet you say you do not consider cart paths in the initial routing/design.

I am not trying to be pedantic, just trying to understand why a course needs to be different and more powerful if designed for a cart. Are you saying that on all other courses which allow carts and walking the Carter has a more powerful experience from just sitting in his backside, than the Walker who has the ability and time to study all the GCA and beauty of landscape before him/her. Carts can also be dangerous even on gentle slopes as shown by Kalen’s accident earlier this year (sorry can’t find a copy of the photo).

I am from an old golfing family, who have played the game in the normal manner for centuries (walking), through that I believe some of us have a deep association with the game in Fife and for me TOC, New Course, not to mention St Andrews.     

I hope you take my comments in the way they are intended and not disrespectful or an attack upon your person, as I am unable to convey a tone of interest in my writing.

Again, many thanks for your post it’s from these posts that the debate can move forward.

Melvyn

[Ben Sims]

Mel,

Just like I cannot comment accurately about the experience of the first tee at TOC, stepping over sheep fences at Brora, or a good single malt served by a man speaking with a proper brogue, you do not have the requisite experience needed to properly opine on the finer points of the "cart ball" experience on mountainous terrain in America.  And quite frankly, until you have played courses like the ones Mr. Engh designs, you cannot understand his illustration of a "powerful" golfing experience. 

Now, I will say this.  I haven't played any of Mr. Engh's layouts.  But I have played my share of mountain golf in Colorado and California.  I can assure you that many of these projects wouldn't be financially feasible without carts.  Simple as that.  I guarantee that Stone Eagle wouldn't have been a successful project if it was walking only.  And Tom would've been forced--at least in theory--to alter the routing and overall experience if carts weren't a consideration. 

What's more Mel, I think you miss the point of Mr. Engh's article when you say this:

Please excuse my ignorance, but why should a golf course design be less exciting/fun if walking or much more powerful experience for carts.

Your point forgets the crux of the article.  The properties that Jim Engh is siting as examples in his article are better served as "cart ball" golf courses.  Period.  If he made those properties into courses that were even remotely walkable by 25% of the folks on the tee sheet, he would have been ditching superior individual golf holes in favor of shorter green to tee transitions, less elevation change, and generally less interest.  Remember, we're talking about the Rocky freakin' Mountains here Mel.

Break--Break--

I do appreciate Mr. Engh's involvement in the ongoing arguement.  And if I were him and read some of the things written on this site regarding his work, I would probably not be as civil as he has when posting.  But to broaden the view somewhat.  Here is my general and overarching take on the article. (An aside. I haven't played a single Engh design.  I respect his success in the business and his obvious talent for articulating the difficulties in his sites.  But as I have said elsewhere, I do not agree with the direction it takes golf.)  Why are we building golf courses in some of these places?  If so many problems in golf are tied to overinflation, bloated, "bells and whistles" golf clubs and courses, why are we so infatuated as a golfing public with these courses.  It's almost as if Mr. Engh's prowess at building mountainous golf courses has belied the fact that it produces a product that, IMHO, is at the root of what's ailing the game.  I hope I'm not off base in suggesting that Lakota Canyon and Redlands Mesa would be tough to support financially without real estate involvement.  Isn't that part of the problem we're facing?  That all too often, golf has become an amenity and not the focus? 

Then again, there's always the Big world theory, it takes all kinds, it's still a business, blah, blah, blah.  I get it.  We've beaten that Secretariat more than twice. 

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,

As one who has played 4 of Enghs layouts, all of them mountainous in nature, I would agree that his efforts were done well and he's built some fantastic holes. When one stands on the 3rd tee at Black Rock, or the 17th at Redlands, or the 5th at Sanctuary and you're not feeling anything, you need to have your pulse checked....and this is just to name a few.

P.S. Do you also believe a course like Stone Eagle should not have been built?  Do you think this course also "ails the game" due to it mountainous and unwalkable nature?  Or how about Highland Links at Cape Breton?  Its also "mountain golf" and a tough walk from what I've read?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ben

Did you actually read my post?

So we are agreed Cart Balling is not the real game of Golf but indeed something called Cart Ball Golf. Also both requiring different course designs.

Just interested, tell me do you hit the ball harder in cart Balling, do you use Greens in the normal way - walk to them and over them? Whatever, it still requires two different designs, fine I have no problem with that - Cart Balling is not Golf, its Cart Balling, so lets be honest and call it Cart Balling to stop confusion.

I do not think I have misunderstood Jim's thread, perhaps just seeking clarification.

Melvyn

[Garland Bayley]

...

Your point forgets the crux of the article.  The properties that Jim Engh is siting as examples in his article are better served as "cart ball" golf courses.  Period.  If he made those properties into courses that were even remotely walkable by 25% of the folks on the tee sheet, he would have been ditching superior individual golf holes in favor of shorter green to tee transitions, less elevation change, and generally less interest.  Remember, we're talking about the Rocky freakin' Mountains here Mel.
...

Ben,

I'm sorry, but you apparently don't realize that you that you are critcizing Melvyn for not having the experience to make his statements, but then you do the same! You do not have the experience of designing a course in the "Rocky freakin' Mountains" so you do not know what you are talking about.

I have not designed a course either, but let me give you a couple of points to ponders. I played a course in the Rockies that had many uphill green to tee transfers, but yet the best hole on the course was one of the only two or three playing uphill. That is not just my opinion, it was a hole featured on their website.

I recently played Indian Canyon which was built before carts, and which played on severe terrain, and I believe most architects would be extremely hard pressed to create a better course with the aid of carts.

[Garland Bayley]

...
P.S. Do you also believe a course like Stone Eagle should not have been built?  Do you think this course also "ails the game" due to it mountainous and unwalkable nature?  Or how about Highland Links at Cape Breton?  Its also "mountain golf" and a tough walk from what I've read?

You must be reading different things than I am.

[Ben Sims]

Kalen,

Some tough questions there.  It's been an amazing string of courses I've seen in quite a short period of time this year.  I've played golf and/or discussed the game with MANY people in the past five months that I trust nearly implicitely in their opinions on architecture, the game itself, and the current state of the business going forward.  The list is pretty humbling for me actually.  I've met more important "golf people" than important "aviation people" if you can believe that.

The opinions I have are rooted in a collection of facts and opinions told to me by those folks.  In regards to your questions:

1) I respect and admire nearly ALL GCA.  That is to say I realize that I--at least at my current intelligence level--could never do what they do.  

2) Which is to say that I like only about 20% of it.  Stuff that 90% od people think is good, I find fault or compromise in.  Ask Wyatt Halliday about our trip to Newport Dunes, or our heated discussion on the bunkering in the center of the 8th at Kingsley.

3) Stone Eagle was a great golf experience.  It has some memorable holes.  The course itself, top to bottom, is above average for sure.  But what I consider great about SE is it's location, it's "new age" connection of grasses between holes, and it's recovery options.  As far as the property?  Only a filthy rich individual could see a golf course there.  And it took two very, very talented people to make it any good.  Should it have been built?  It's absurd to think it should not have been.  But as is the same with some of the other courses I've mentioned, I think there are options for great golf courses at lower cost on land more suitable.  That's all.

The question for me is not can we build a golf course on the moon, but should we?  George Thomas didn't need much at Riviera, just a barranca and some of the first earthmoving equipment.  Look at the five most satisfying golf experiences you've ever had.  Was the severity of the terrain a factor in any of them?  Did the cost of the construction matter at all to you?  

Mel,

Alright friend, I don't want to ride this merry-go-round again.  I just get dizzy and puke after awhile.  My point is this.  You say walking is what makes the experience powerful.  I say it is superb golf holes.  For Jim Engh to get superb golf holes on many of his sites, carts are nearly the only option for the casual American golfer.  Okay, that's all I was saying.  You took an article about cart paths and severe sites and made it about the experiential differences between carts and walking.  Can we dispense with "cart balling"?  Tell you what, just for you, I'll call it cart ball from now on.  And the other 25-30 million or so golfers in America will continue to call it golf.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

I am labelled as a traditional golfer by many which seems to allows them to believe that it gives them the right to ridicule my thoughts, opinions and to introduce some of the most unbelievable comments along the lines that I should stick with Hickory shafted clubs and the old Gutta balls (well, some  words to that effect)- Melyvn Morrow

No one is ridiculing you, they just hammer back at your incessant demand that the only game in town is yours.  Stick with your traditional game, no one wants to rob you of it, but golf has moved from it's traditional location, the links, into territories that are much different, and that move fostered some changes. It seems entirely plausible that the men who moved golf inland so long ago would be accepting of the men who moved golf into the parks, the mountains, and the deserts. Even your ancestor took accepted a modern approach to equipment, when that equipment did force changes onto the game.

So, it's in your blood to be understanding of the men who take chances and approach their work from slightly different angles, like a Jim Engh. You should be out there applauding someone who, like OTM, saw a slice of the future and wasn't scared by it.

[Ben Sims]

...

Your point forgets the crux of the article.  The properties that Jim Engh is siting as examples in his article are better served as "cart ball" golf courses.  Period.  If he made those properties into courses that were even remotely walkable by 25% of the folks on the tee sheet, he would have been ditching superior individual golf holes in favor of shorter green to tee transitions, less elevation change, and generally less interest.  Remember, we're talking about the Rocky freakin' Mountains here Mel.
...

Ben,

I'm sorry, but you apparently don't realize that you that you are critcizing Melvyn for not having the experience to make his statements, but then you do the same! You do not have the experience of designing a course in the "Rocky freakin' Mountains" so you do not know what you are talking about.

I have not designed a course either, but let me give you a couple of points to ponders. I played a course in the Rockies that had many uphill green to tee transfers, but yet the best hole on the course was one of the only two or three playing uphill. That is not just my opinion, it was a hole featured on their website.

I recently played Indian Canyon which was built before carts, and which played on severe terrain, and I believe most architects would be extremely hard pressed to create a better course with the aid of carts.

Bayley,

I'l reply to each paragraph seperately.

1) From now on you are no longer allowed to comment on a meal you have eaten unless you prepared it yourself.  But, you are allowed to comment on the quality of a meal in Thailand just by looking at pictures of it and seeing what the chef wrote about it on his website.  See, unlike Mel, I've played mountain golf.  Lots of it.  And I know that to make those sites walkable would be to compromise the integrity of the routing.  Even though I didn't cook the meal.

2) That was a point well made.  Until you made the website "featured" hole comment.  

3) Indian Canyon in Spokane?  I played it three years ago when I was at survival school and I didn't think it was that severe.  Or at least not as severe as say, Stone Eagle.

[Garland Bayley]

...  See, unlike Mel, I've played mountain golf.  Lots of it.  And I know that to make those sites walkable would be to compromise the integrity of the routing.  Even though I didn't cook the meal.
...

I don't care if you have played lots of mountain golf. You have not designed and built golf courses in mountain terrain. According to your criteria applied to Melvyn you have no more credibility stating "to make those sites walkable would be to compromise the integrity of the routing" than you claim he lacks in making his statements.

Not to mention that you also say you are not intelligent enough to create a golf course yourself.

I haven't been to Stone Eagle, so I cannot comment other than I understand there is a slightly shortcutted version that is eminently walkable. I also have the impression that the weather is considered part of the reason for carting there.

[Melvyn Morrow]

I had contemplated sending my post via IM to Jim as I was interested to learn more and understand, but that’s not generally the way for a blog site.

The problem is that we do not understand, we don’t have time to understand, we don’t even want to try to understand each other, The old saying ‘if you do not know, ask’, is long dead and buried. The policy of shooting first and ask question later is coming to the forefront. What a way to live.

Some questions and opinions make others puke. Beautiful, makes you wonder if we have any future at all on this or any other world.

What a wonderful world, full of the milk of human kindness and consideration

Melvyn

[Ben Sims]

...  See, unlike Mel, I've played mountain golf.  Lots of it.  And I know that to make those sites walkable would be to compromise the integrity of the routing.  Even though I didn't cook the meal.
...

I don't care if you have played lots of mountain golf. You have not designed and built golf courses in mountain terrain. According to your criteria applied to Melvyn you have no more credibility stating "to make those sites walkable would be to compromise the integrity of the routing" than you claim he lacks in making his statements.

Not to mention that you also say you are not intelligent enough to create a golf course yourself.

I haven't been to Stone Eagle, so I cannot comment other than I understand there is a slightly shortcutted version that is eminently walkable. I also have the impression that the weather is considered part of the reason for carting there.

So I'm guessing that my self-deprecation was missed on you.  Oh well.

I disagree with you principally on the fact that Mel commenting on mountain cart ball when he has never even seen it is the same as me saying that making those courses more walkable would be to compromise good golf holes.  Because, as mentioned, I've seen them.  Hello McFly??  It didn't take an Ivy League degree to see that massive earthmoving coupled with considerably unnatural appearances would result from making the site more walker friendly.  But like you said, I didn't design, so how could I possibly understand that.

[John_Conley]

Jim, great to have you posting.  A true artist and class act. 

[C. Squier]

I had contemplated sending my post via IM to Jim as I was interested to learn more and understand, but that’s not generally the way for a blog site.

The problem is that we do not understand, we don’t have time to understand, we don’t even want to try to understand each other, The old saying ‘if you do not know, ask’, is long dead and buried. The policy of shooting first and ask question later is coming to the forefront. What a way to live.

Some questions and opinions make others puke. Beautiful, makes you wonder if we have any future at all on this or any other world.

What a wonderful world, full of the milk of human kindness and consideration

Melvyn

Melvyn, you're 100% right.  So in order to understand, please fly over the US and visit Stone Eagle next July.  If you walk and carry 36, I'd be willing to bet every participant on this website will call golf in the US "cartball".  

Until then, you're blowing in the wind.

[Garland Bayley]

... I've seen them.  Hello McFly??  It didn't take an Ivy League degree to see that massive earthmoving coupled with considerably unnatural appearances would result from making the site more walker friendly.  But like you said, I didn't design, so how could I possibly understand that.

Hello McFly?? Who's talking about massive earthmoving? Did Egan do massive earthmoving at Indian Canyon? Did Doak do massive earthmoving at Stone Eagle? Do you build a great uphill hole by doing massive earthmoving to build the hill?

Your assignment is to read Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course, and then come back and make your argument.

[Garland Bayley]

Melvyn, you're 100% right.  So in order to understand, please fly over the US and visit Stone Eagle next July.  If you walk and carry 36, I'd be willing to bet every participant on this website will call golf in the US "cartball".  

Until then, you're blowing in the wind.

Why does he have to do that? The USGA has labeled it cartball, so technically he is already right. The USGA says if you are not walking you are not playing golf! Melvyn simply is in compliance with the USGA! How more American can he get?