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.