News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #275 on: September 30, 2009, 11:30:49 AM »
I agree with Adam that slow play is a problem for riders and walkers.  The PGA tour needs to get serious about enforcement.  If I have to watch Padraig Harrington go through his endless preshot routine one more time I may give up watching golf except on TIVO.  How mony groups of high handicappers have you been stuck behind while everyone lines up their 2-footer for triple in turn? This goes back to the stroke play/match play thread as well...
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #276 on: September 30, 2009, 11:31:26 AM »
I think there is no need to argue slowness between walkers and riders. Some people play slow! It is an attribute of the person, not of the method of conveyance.

Any quick walkers can make carters look and feel slow by quickly getting to their approach shots and stand over them looking perturbed while taking multiple practice swings while the carters ahead are putting out.
As has pointed out above carters can make walkers feel slow by dashing up to their drives and waiting on the walkers.

Anthony is an especially fast carter, because he doesn't bother to putt out. Playing with him is watching ADHD (aka ADD) in action. ;)


And he also gives very nice rulings too!!!   ;D

P.S.  Adam, I'd be curious to know where you got that 85% of golfers ride figure?

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #277 on: September 30, 2009, 11:56:41 AM »
Returning to topic -

What is the "breaking point" in terms of land that makes "cart golf" a superior option?

Would most GCAs have looked at RCCC and seen a "cart golf" course?

Anthony - I have requested that people please do not consider "walking only" or RE developments for this question to keep it a little more pointed.

The choice is whether to make a course walkable so golfers have a choice to walk or not (and they will not be damned for either).

How severe does the site need to be to remove walking from the equation? Anyone have a good example?

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #278 on: September 30, 2009, 12:09:11 PM »
...
What is the "breaking point" in terms of land that makes "cart golf" a superior option?
...
How severe does the site need to be to remove walking from the equation? Anyone have a good example?

Apparently at least some of the time flat.

The picture is from a flat site where Jim obviously pushed up all the contours often into quite unnatural land forms. The picture is between the black and blue teeing mounds with the white teeing mound peeking out on the right. The only purpose of having to walk over these mounds is to have an elevated view of the hole while teeing off from the appropriate mound.


« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 12:27:00 PM by Bayley R. Garland »
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #279 on: September 30, 2009, 12:22:38 PM »
Not sure about the speed of play difference. I noticed at the health club last night that they are pushing "10,000 steps a day" for better health.  The chart they had showed about 80 steps per minute in a cart vs 90 steps per minute walking.  They must have figured that on a cart path only course, where the number of steps is probably close to that of walking straight to your ball - either 60 yards out and back or 180-230 yards to the average drive.  120 steps vs 230.  But, figure in walking 20 yards from cart to green and tee, etc. it might be close.

What I haven't seen in this discussion is the notion that I have run into - elevating greens and tees just a few feet can make it tough on many golfers.  Some gca's set the front tee a minimum of 2 feet above grade, and step them up 2 feet, so the walk up to the back tee might be 8-10 feet - and that is a killer for many.  Starting at grade, and reducing the steps a bit can reduce the vertical climb a lot.

But, at many courses, we are talking that little vertical climb affecting walking, making arguments over what Jim Engh had in mind about moderate sites kind of moot.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #280 on: September 30, 2009, 12:31:20 PM »
I agree that if people want to walk they should be allowed to. That makes perfect sense. I think some places can get more players on the course and thus have more profit by not having walkers slow down the pace of play ie Sawgrass or Harbor Town. Two that can easily be walked.

In my experience, whether or not walkers slow things up is largely a consequence of the design.  On courses designed for walking I don't see walking slowing things up at all.   And on the cartball courses I've played, it sure seems like the rounds took a heck of a lot longer than on walking courses.  

Quote
 As far as Castle Stuart. The target audience is the walking golfer. At Rustic Canyon the target audience is anyone who will pay. Two totally different cultures and golf IQ's of the typical person that plays these two courses. Same designer but different cultures.

I mistakenly wrote Castle "Stewart" above.  Does that make me the first person ever to be outspelled by Anthony?   I've also been informed that there are no carts or paths at Castle Stuart, given that it is fescue.  I'm glad to hear it, and was obviously wrong above.  

Quote
At Rustic Canyon we talked about why they did not put elevated tees up on the canyon. I think it would have been better for shot value and to take advantage of the view. I forget why it was not done. Do you remember?

I cant speak for the designers, but the land extends from the top of the canyon on each side, so presumably they could have gone up and down these steep banks if they wanted, but IMO to do so would have been completely contrary to what those three view as quality architecture!  To name just a few things, it would have required excessive dirt moving, would have looked very unnatural, would have eliminated walking, would have necessitated ignoring much of the quirk and contour of the site, would have made the course just like most other new courses built in California, would have lessened the golfing experience by focusing on the spectacular at the expense of the interesting.   In other words, it would have obliterated just about everything that makes the course special.  

How would the alternative approach been better for shot value?  Is "shot value" dependent upon elevated tees and scenic panoramas?

_____________________________________________________________________

David....if that is the debate here....then I can assure you that most GC Architects would always prefer designing a course that is walkable.....if the terrain allows for it

Paul,  If this the case then apparently Mr. Engh is one of the few who disagrees.   He has written that, even on moderate sites that where a walking golf is possible, he will gladly sacrifice walking if it means he can build more spectacular, inspiring, and powerful golf holes.  To him it is a no brainer.  

And that to me is fundamentally different approach toward moderate and difficult sites.   The severity of the land is no longer a liability necessitating the use of a golf cart.   It is an asset that should be sought out and exploited, regardless of the impact on walking.    And to me that is a perspective worthy of consideration and conversation, isn't it?

I suspect many developers and a some designers view it similarly to Mr. Engh, but I hope you are correct about most always preferring to design a course that is walkable.  

___________________________________________________

David,
I would respectfully disagree about what "most of the discussion has focused on" during this thread.  This thread comes down to two things.

One is what Jim Engh meant by "moderate land" in the first post, and what should be done with it when building a golf course.  I took that to mean land where walking would be, at best, challenging, and where few would choose to walk even if the course was constructed that way.  Others, and I think you are in this camp, seemed to view the word "moderate" as land where walking would be more of a 50-50 proposition.  Unfortunately, Mr. Engh has never returned to clear that up, and I can't really blame him.

A.G.,  Wasn't Mr. Engh fairly clear on this issue?   I think he views it as a continuum, but his example involved land where 50% of golfers could walk.   He reasoned that most of the 50% wouldn't walk - likely 90% would ride - and in these situations he would rather build a more spectacular/powerful/inspiring golf course even if it meant no walking would be reasonably possible:

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.

Moreover, while I understand what you are suggesting, I wonder if you and others might be focusing on the wrong side of the equation.   I suspect that the deciding factor is not how many people would or could walk, but rather whether or not the particular land allowed Mr. Engh to  make golf holes that he considers more spectacular/inspiring/powerful.   In other words, given what Mr. Engh has written,I don't think he would ever pass up a chance to make a spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf hole for the sake of preserving the walkability of a site.   After all won't the vast majority of golfers ride anyway?    If so, then why would he ever give up the chance to create spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf holes if the site allowed for them?  

A few of us have tried to explore these issues above, but our posts have largely been ignored.     I asked some questions in my long substantive post to Mr. Engh.  RR has asked similar questions, and Michael Moore has asked a very specific fact based question above.    In response Jay has tried to vilify us, but few have bothered to even consider our posts or questions.

I don't blame Mr. Engh for not becoming embroiled in this, but whether he is involved or not, it is surely worth discussing isn't it?   Because as I said above to Paul it seems to be a shift in the paradigm.

Quote
The second theme, however, has been a steadfast refusal by two individuals to accept that, for a variety of reason, carts are part of the world of golf today, EVER! This includes such inanities as whether or not riding in a cart is even golf, whether or not there is ever any reason for a player to ride, whether or not a player should give up the game if they can't walk, and the demonization of ANY GCA that builds a course that is essentially unwalkable, or even difficult.  This has been the unfortunate part of the thread, and I don't see it stopping.

I have steered clear of that conversation and want no part of it.   But I won't censor myself because of the rancor that exists over these issues that don't concern me.
____________________________________________________________________________

So we've lost Peter Pallotta and Jim Engh all because of David M...that's a sad loss for the site.

Guys, just ignore him.  One of these days, that kid will grow up.

The problem is that some people take delight in character assassination for whatever petty reason, even if they have to spread a lie to do it.  David is the common theme on every excreble thread on GCA.com these days, and worst of all, he likes that.

What are these and your similar posts if not pathetic attempts at character assignation?    Grow up Jay.  
« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 12:35:44 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #281 on: September 30, 2009, 12:55:34 PM »
Bill,

Actually, Adam and I are quite a bit apart on this one.  I am making the simple point that riding from point A to point B is much quicker than walking it.  It follows that a slow rider who forgoes his cart will play even slower if it takes him longer to get to his ball, and perhaps a slow walker might play a bit faster if he hops on a cart and gets to his a bit quicker.  It goes without saying that without effective marshalling, the speed of play is dictated by the slowest players, regardless whether they're riding or hoofing it.

Again, citing Great Southwest GC where I was a member for over 20 years, the morning weekend shift is mandatory riding and most every tee time (8 minutes apart, when I was there last) is used.  Typical speed of play is 4 hours or less.  The afternoon tee times when walking is allowed and which are less in demand often yield 4.5+ hour rounds.

As a walker I HATE to recognize this truth which I don't think is unique to this golf course.  I don't know that golfers are less considerate or educated today.  It may be a reflection of society as a whole.  We seem hell-bent on forcing our narrow preferences on everyone else- I hated it when riders did that to me and I would be a hypocrite if I would react in kind.

Regarding the specific topic of this thread, to the extent that the client and the customer value more compelling architecture as they define it- not David Moriarty, me, or you- and the comfort, convenience, or just the access of riding a cart, the "thoughtful" architect would be nuts to do otherwise.  We may be happy with a walkable course with 8-10 very good holes, a few decent ones, and the rest "connectors".  Some prefer 18 signature holes with carts connecting the routing together.  I am not sure that this is a sustainable business model, but I have been known to be wrong on occasion. 

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #282 on: September 30, 2009, 01:00:43 PM »
Jeff B,

If I can get our old friend Perzan on a diet bet, are you game?  I am going to pull the trigger (on a plan) any year now.

For me, weight reduction, physical fitness, and the beneficial effects on my game are the most compelling reasons for walking.  And for the record, if given a free membership at Brook Hollow or Colonial, both very walkable golf courses, versus Dallas National, a much superior course in my estimation but a very hard walk, I'd choose the former.

Tom Dunne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #283 on: September 30, 2009, 01:06:30 PM »
  "At Rustic Canyon we talked about why they did not put elevated tees up on the canyon. I think it would have been better for shot value and to take advantage of the view. I forget why it was not done. Do you remember?"


Anthony, the word is restraint. One of the great things about Rustic Canyon is that when you walk up to that 16th tee and look out over the entire course, all of the holes you've spent the past couple of hours playing, you realize how gradually you've been moving up-canyon. You have earned that view, not had it spoon-fed to you. For some, there is a world of difference between that and just running cart paths up and down the hillside to "capitalize on the views." Don't know if you've ever seen Rees Jones's Lake of Isles at Foxwoods Casino in CT, but that's the deal there--build a platform tee, drive it down into a valley, then buzz the cart back uphill to the top of the next ridge. Repeat.

Great views don't mean much if the golfer is denied the pleasure of the journey to discover them.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #284 on: September 30, 2009, 01:42:29 PM »
Lou. Bill is right. Its a semantical difference between those who are avid golfers and those who I'm referencing. Let's let this hijack end?.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #285 on: September 30, 2009, 02:06:07 PM »
 "At Rustic Canyon we talked about why they did not put elevated tees up on the canyon. I think it would have been better for shot value and to take advantage of the view. I forget why it was not done. Do you remember?"


Anthony, the word is restraint. One of the great things about Rustic Canyon is that when you walk up to that 16th tee and look out over the entire course, all of the holes you've spent the past couple of hours playing, you realize how gradually you've been moving up-canyon. You have earned that view, not had it spoon-fed to you. For some, there is a world of difference between that and just running cart paths up and down the hillside to "capitalize on the views." 

Great views don't mean much if the golfer is denied the pleasure of the journey to discover them.

Thats what I'm talkin bout.  This is one of the best posts this year.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #286 on: September 30, 2009, 02:28:37 PM »
I've played with Jay Flemma, and each time we have walked. As a matter of fact, I asked him if he wanted to take a cart each time, as I had no aversion to "cart golf", but he wanted to walk, so I did too!
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #287 on: September 30, 2009, 02:40:44 PM »
What do guys have to say about the elevator you take to get from #9 to #10 at George Thomas’ Bel-Air or the tram you ride up with clubs in tow on #17 at Colt & Alison’s Kirtland CC or for that matter a similar tram at Flynn’s design at Manufacturers?  What were these architects thinking  ;)  Maybe those transport methods seemed pretty cool to them and it provided an interesting journey!  

I love to walk, espcially with a caddy, and would despise taking a cart on many courses I play.  However, thank goodness there is variety in golf.  If it weren't for carts, one of my favorite courses by Coore & Crenshaw - The Plantation Course in Maui, would never have been built!
« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 02:42:15 PM by Mark_Fine »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #288 on: September 30, 2009, 07:43:02 PM »
What do guys have to say about the elevator you take to get from #9 to #10 at George Thomas’ Bel-Air or the tram you ride up with clubs in tow on #17 at Colt & Alison’s Kirtland CC or for that matter a similar tram at Flynn’s design at Manufacturers?  What were these architects thinking  ;)  Maybe those transport methods seemed pretty cool to them and it provided an interesting journey!

Maybe.   But as Jim Engh notes, it is a continuum.  And I'd place all those things very close to the walking side of things, as they all allow the golfer to walk except for a single transition.  Same for the ferry service at Bandon Dunes (which didn't yet exist when I was there.)

Quote
I love to walk, espcially with a caddy, and would despise taking a cart on many courses I play.  However, thank goodness there is variety in golf.  If it weren't for carts, one of my favorite courses by Coore & Crenshaw - The Plantation Course in Maui, would never have been built!

I find Plantation to be an interesting example and have thought of it quite a few times during these conversations.   For one thing, it is a good example of how one bad transition can kill an entire course with regard to walking.   For another, one of the reason it works, I think, is that much of it feels like it was designed for walking, whether one takes carts or not.   But one thing I've noticed is that even after playing it around 10 times I still don't feel like a have a real connection to the course and I definitely don't feel like I understand the terrain as well as I should.   I assume this is because I am zooming by much of it in a cart.   I think I'd appreciate it more if there was a reasonable way to walk it, and think that as good as it may be, it'd be a lot better if they'd figure out a way to make it reasonably walkable.

For one thing it is a very good example of how one very long walk can kill the possibility of walking for the entire course. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Joe Perches

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #289 on: September 30, 2009, 08:10:59 PM »
One of the great things about Rustic Canyon is that when you walk up to that 16th tee and look out over the entire course, all of the holes you've spent the past couple of hours playing, you realize how gradually you've been moving up-canyon. You have earned that view, not had it spoon-fed to you.

I suppose that depends on whether or not you're in a cart.

One of the common complaints I've heard from a number of different people after 15 is "I hate this climb".


A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #290 on: September 30, 2009, 09:31:55 PM »


___________________________________________________

David,
I would respectfully disagree about what "most of the discussion has focused on" during this thread.  This thread comes down to two things.

One is what Jim Engh meant by "moderate land" in the first post, and what should be done with it when building a golf course.  I took that to mean land where walking would be, at best, challenging, and where few would choose to walk even if the course was constructed that way.  Others, and I think you are in this camp, seemed to view the word "moderate" as land where walking would be more of a 50-50 proposition.  Unfortunately, Mr. Engh has never returned to clear that up, and I can't really blame him.

A.G.,  Wasn't Mr. Engh fairly clear on this issue?   I think he views it as a continuum, but his example involved land where 50% of golfers could walk.   He reasoned that most of the 50% wouldn't walk - likely 90% would ride - and in these situations he would rather build a more spectacular/powerful/inspiring golf course even if it meant no walking would be reasonably possible:

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.

Moreover, while I understand what you are suggesting, I wonder if you and others might be focusing on the wrong side of the equation.   I suspect that the deciding factor is not how many people would or could walk, but rather whether or not the particular land allowed Mr. Engh to  make golf holes that he considers more spectacular/inspiring/powerful.   In other words, given what Mr. Engh has written,I don't think he would ever pass up a chance to make a spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf hole for the sake of preserving the walkability of a site.   After all won't the vast majority of golfers ride anyway?    If so, then why would he ever give up the chance to create spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf holes if the site allowed for them?  

A few of us have tried to explore these issues above, but our posts have largely been ignored.     I asked some questions in my long substantive post to Mr. Engh.  RR has asked similar questions, and Michael Moore has asked a very specific fact based question above.    In response Jay has tried to vilify us, but few have bothered to even consider our posts or questions.

I don't blame Mr. Engh for not becoming embroiled in this, but whether he is involved or not, it is surely worth discussing isn't it?   Because as I said above to Paul it seems to be a shift in the paradigm.


____________________________________________________________________________


David,
I think what has consistently been ignored here, save one or two posts, is that Jim Engh doesn't build golf courses as monuments to the game of golf, or to the activity of walking while playing golf.  Whether we like it or not, he builds golf courses for a person who employs him and pays him, and the courses he builds are a product of what his employer wants built.  Employers want courses with holes that are "spectacular/inspiring/powerful"; it is Engh's JOB to build those.  

Can you imagine a scenario in which a GCA tells the potential employer that he as the GCA will be sacrificing spectacular/inspiring/powerful for walkability?  I don't think he gets that job...

If Mr. Engh builds courses that are highly walkable but commercially less successful than courses that are visually spectacular, he will not continue to be employed, I would suspect.  We have talked here as if he, or any GCA, builds exactly the course that they wish to build, but common sense tells us that isn't the case.  I would be curious to know if at least some developers want or instruct their GCA to build the course to be only marginally walkable or not walkable at all in order to force cart revenues.  It's hard to blame Engh or anybody else in the profession for building a product that their employer mandates; we all do it at our work every day!

The fact is that the vast majority of golfers don't want to walk, and will NOT walk even if the course is built for walking, and I don't think that is especially arguable.  Whether the % of walkers is 1%, 10%, 20% or some other %, it is by far the minority.  I was considered an oddity at my former club for walking regardless of heat, etc. on a course that was a very easy walk, and I am well on my way to being considered the same way at my new club, which is a much tougher walk.  My guess is that far less than 10% walk at the former, and it looks more like 1% at the latter.  Both are far, far more moderate land than Jim Engh specializes in, BTW.

We here on GCA.com are oddities in many ways, walking not the least of them.  Most golfers don't give a rat's heinie about the architect or architecture of the golf course, and they have no intention of walking to find out.  That's just the way it is, and you and I would be completely nuts to expect Jim Engh to build courses with golfers like you and me foremost in his mind.

« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 09:33:50 PM by A.G._Crockett »
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #291 on: September 30, 2009, 11:44:48 PM »
David,
I think what has consistently been ignored here, save one or two posts, is that Jim Engh doesn't build golf courses as monuments to the game of golf, or to the activity of walking while playing golf.  Whether we like it or not, he builds golf courses for a person who employs him and pays him, and the courses he builds are a product of what his employer wants built.  Employers want courses with holes that are "spectacular/inspiring/powerful"; it is Engh's JOB to build those.

Can you imagine a scenario in which a GCA tells the potential employer that he as the GCA will be sacrificing spectacular/inspiring/powerful for walkability?  I don't think he gets that job...

If Mr. Engh builds courses that are highly walkable but commercially less successful than courses that are visually spectacular, he will not continue to be employed, I would suspect.  We have talked here as if he, or any GCA, builds exactly the course that they wish to build, but common sense tells us that isn't the case.  I would be curious to know if at least some developers want or instruct their GCA to build the course to be only marginally walkable or not walkable at all in order to force cart revenues.  It's hard to blame Engh or anybody else in the profession for building a product that their employer mandates; we all do it at our work every day!

The fact is that the vast majority of golfers don't want to walk, and will NOT walk even if the course is built for walking, and I don't think that is especially arguable.  Whether the % of walkers is 1%, 10%, 20% or some other %, it is by far the minority.  I was considered an oddity at my former club for walking regardless of heat, etc. on a course that was a very easy walk, and I am well on my way to being considered the same way at my new club, which is a much tougher walk.  My guess is that far less than 10% walk at the former, and it looks more like 1% at the latter.  Both are far, far more moderate land than Jim Engh specializes in, BTW.

We here on GCA.com are oddities in many ways, walking not the least of them.  Most golfers don't give a rat's heinie about the architect or architecture of the golf course, and they have no intention of walking to find out.  That's just the way it is, and you and I would be completely nuts to expect Jim Engh to build courses with golfers like you and me foremost in his mind.

A.G,  I appreciate you responding and keeping it above belt.  I understand what you are saying.  Mr. Engh said something similar in the first post with reference to sites that were unwalkable, but I think it may apply to moderately walkable sites as well.  He has clients that want spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf holes on sometimes difficult sites and he gives them what they want.   I don't blame him for it nor do I expect him to do differently.   Mr. Engh has been quite successful providing these clients with spectacular/inspiring/powerful and that speaks for itself.    That being said, there are a couple of things that I am not sure you are considering.

1.   Mr. Engh is not an employee, he is an independent professional who has at least some say over the direction of his career, the kind of jobs he goes after, and the kind of developer he will work for.   So it is not entirely accurate to say he is completely beholden to the client's wishes.  Mr. Engh doesn't have to go after the jobs where he disagrees with the developer's vision.  
     In this regard, it may also be worth considering that some designers have shaped their careers in a direction that allows them to at least try and build walkable courses.   And some of these designers have worked on some sites that would very likely have been considered cartball courses by the vast majority of designers and developers.    So their must be at least some developers out there who are open to walking courses on tough sites, or these designers must be pretty convincing.
    This may sound like an indictment of Jim Engh, but I don't mean it to be.   Mr. Engh has shaped his career and been very successful.  I would be very surprised if he thinks his artistic vision has been severely compromised by his clients.  At least I hope he wouldn't think so.  My point is that he has had quite a bit of control over the direction his career has taken, I he is probably quite proud of that.   Wouldn't you be?  So I am not willing to accept that it is all just a matter of what his clients want.

2.  What is good for Mr. Engh's business is not necessarily good for golf, what his clients want will not necessarily produce the best courses.  I don't think we should analyze golf courses based on whether the designer does what the client wants.  Many developers wouldn't know a good golf course if NGLA fell out of the sky and hit them on the head.   Do we really want to base our standards on what they want?   I mean no disrespect to Jim Engh here, because what his good for his business is really none of my business.  For example, it makes no difference to me whether the waterfalls at Black Rock were his idea or his client's idea or both.   I don't like them either way.  
    So while I agree that it is important to consider what the market demands, it is also important to realize that markets are fickle and what the market demands does not always turn out to be what is best for even the market in the long run.  

3.  Unlike the designers, we have the luxury of looking at these golf courses without having to ask ourselves "did it put food on my table?" or "did it help me get my next job?"  And in my opinion that is the proper perspective from which to consider these things.   We don't have to worry about the short term business concerns or the bottom line and can focus on where a course fits in the medium as a whole-- past, present, and future.   How do these courses impact the golfer's expectations?   Will these courses be considered great in 100 years or even 10 years?   Does it make long term sense for the industry to be focusing on such courses?   What is the cost to the traditional golf experience when we do away with walking?   Do they help or hurt golf's image?   Do they attract avid golfers who will continue to play them year after year?  Etc.  Do they sacrifice the interesting at the alter of the spectacular?   These issues and many more are independent of what is good for Mr. Engh's business.  

I hope that clarifies where I am coming from on these issues.   I don't expect Mr. Engh to build golf courses for me, and I don't think he expects me to like courses he builds for his clients.   In fact I doubt he gives any thought to what I think at all, nor do I think he necessarily should.  He is a very successful designer and should do what he thinks is best for his career, whether we here like it or not.   And we'll write what we think, whether he would agree with us or not.   It is nothing personal against (or for) Mr. Engh.  It is about the golf courses.  
« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 11:51:59 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #292 on: October 01, 2009, 08:31:42 AM »
David,
While I agree that any GCA has some control over the direction his career takes, once he takes a job he is hardly "independent."  Every one of us has some control over the direction of our career, but once we sign a contract and take a job, our employer determines what direction we take.  GCA's are no different. 

I wholeheartedly agree that not only are markets fickle, but that markets often do not make good long-term decisions.  One has only to look at General Motors to see this in action, and GCA is not necessarily any different.  However, just like a GM employee or manager can't unilaterally change what the company produces, neither can a GCA who has been employed by a developer to build a particular type of course.  There is no reason to believe that developers have either the best interests of golf (whatever that might mean!) at heart, nor that they are particularly knowledgeable about GCA (whatever THAT might mean!), but it is their nickel and that's the way things work.  Unless Engh wants to be a starving Don Quixote, he'll build what his boss wants, and what his boss will want is a golf course that appeals to the vast majority of the customer base of the golfing public.  You and I are decidedly NOT in that majority; we play much, much more golf and have very particular interests and concerns that the market simply cannot cater to.

You are right also that we have the luxury of not worrying about the economics of the golf business, but instead can obsess about the aesthetics of the sport of golf.  These are very different, and we should absolve Mr. Engh and other GCA's from what WE see as undesirable because they DO have to worry about putting food on the table.  That is a pretty big issue, IMO.

Finally, this still all comes down to the word "moderate".  Engh said clearly that TO HIM this means land that only 50% CAN walk, and that only 10% WILL walk.  That seems pretty clear cut, and economically that is a no-brainer.

"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #293 on: October 01, 2009, 12:29:46 PM »
David,
While I agree that any GCA has some control over the direction his career takes, once he takes a job he is hardly "independent."  Every one of us has some control over the direction of our career, but once we sign a contract and take a job, our employer determines what direction we take.  GCA's are no different.

A.G.,
I agree that once a GCA signs up the developer has quite a lot of say, but surely before he signs up the site has already been chosen and he knows where the developer is coming from.  I believe that usually the GCA will have seen the site (or could have,) maybe come up with some preliminary idea or even a complete routing, bid the project, discussed the details with the developer, and essentially auditioned for the job.   So if the designer ends up getting the job, I think we can safely assume that he is right where he wants to be, and is working on a project he wants to be working on, and has come to some sort of understand (sometimes a detailed understanding) of what the designer/builder will produce.   I am not saying that developers cannot muck things up, but it is not as if the developer is like a defense attorney who has put his name in a hat in the public defender pool at the local courthouse and he must take what he gets no matter who the client.    He chooses his clients and much as the developer chooses the designer. 

Honestly, I this I find this entire line of discussion to be sort of strange, as if Jim Engh (and others) have had to severely compromise their professional ideals and goals to get these jobs.  (I also found it strange that Mr. Engh refers to sites he has been "given" as if he had no say in the matter.)   Normally the  so-called Nuremberg Defense ("I was just following orders") comes up when the result is obviously compromised, wrong, or bad, and the underlings claim "don't blame me, I was just doing my job."   In other words, it really only makes sense when someone is trying to distance themselves for the decisions that led to a bad result.  But here you seem to be taking it to the next level, arguing that we ought not to criticize the final result because the designer was just doing his job.    Isn't the final product good or bad for a golf perspective regardless of whose decision it was to create it?    And if we have to have to "absolve" designers from responsibility for their work, isn't this an implicit admission that something must be seriously wrong with the final product?   

Think of your GM example.  Let's assume that I am very interested in automobile design (past present and future) and I sincerely believe that GM had been heading in the wrong direction for the past decade or so, and that the company and had been focusing on the wrong types of cars, and that they used too much gas, and that the fit and finish was not up to the quality standards of other manufacturers, and that they were not fun to drive, and that they cost more to maintain, and that their business model was not sustainable given the inevitable changes in the world and the industry.  In short, what if I sincerely believed that whether or not GM could sell Suburbans to yuppies, their cars were crap
- Would you tell me that I shouldn't say those things because the employees and middle-management at GM had families to feed and that criticizing the final product was really an unfair criticism of those that were just following orders?   
- Would you tell me that as long as those creating the cars were following orders, then we must not criticize the final product? 
- Or would you agree that it is possible to evaluate the final product, approach, and philosophy of the company without it being a personal affront to the employees or managers?   

Quote
You are right also that we have the luxury of not worrying about the economics of the golf business, but instead can obsess about the aesthetics of the sport of golf.  These are very different, and we should absolve Mr. Engh and other GCA's from what WE see as undesirable because they DO have to worry about putting food on the table.  That is a pretty big issue, IMO.

Mr. Engh doesn't need my absolution and far be it from me to offer absolution or condemnation.   I don't blame him for doing what he does.   My concern is with the golf courses and with golf generally.   You can downplay that by claiming I "obsess about the aesthetics of the sport of golf," but I think there is more to it than that.

Quote
Finally, this still all comes down to the word "moderate".  Engh said clearly that TO HIM this means land that only 50% CAN walk, and that only 10% WILL walk.  That seems pretty clear cut, and economically that is a no-brainer.

Again,  A.G.,  I suspect that this is NOT the real issue.   As I wrote above, I think the real issue is whether or not the particular land allowed Mr. Engh to make golf holes that he considers more spectacular/inspiring/powerful.   In other words, given what Mr. Engh has written, I don't think he would pass up a chance to make a spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf hole for the sake of preserving the walkability of a site, no matter how many people could possible walk.   After all won't the vast majority of golfers ride anyway?    If so, then why would he ever give up the chance to create spectacular/inspiring/powerful golf holes if the site allowed for them?  Why would he ever compromise his vision for the sake of a small percentage of walkers?

I've tried to explore these issues above, as have a few others, but our posts have largely been ignored.    I asked some questions in my long post to Mr. Engh.  RR has asked similar questions, and Michael Moore has asked a very specific fact based question regarding one of his courses on supposedly walkable site.  No one has bothered to even consider our posts or questions.

Do you really think that Mr. Engh would pass up the opportunity to be build a powerful, spectacular, inspiring golf hole for the sake of preserving walking for the few who might?    Doesn't this cut against what you said above,when you noted that you and I cannot reasonably expect Mr. Engh to design his courses for we few outliers?

And, A.G., I appreciate you taking the time to consider my posts and thoughtfully respond, A.G.   I know your perspective is shared by many (probably most) and is worth considering.    I also know I am in the minority here, and am fighting an uphill battle, but I think my take might be worth considering as well.

- David.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #294 on: October 01, 2009, 03:45:19 PM »
A.G._Crockett writes:
Unless Engh wants to be a starving Don Quixote, he'll build what his boss wants, and what his boss will want is a golf course that appeals to the vast majority of the customer base of the golfing public.  You and I are decidedly NOT in that majority; we play much, much more golf and have very particular interests and concerns that the market simply cannot cater to.

Amen. If Engh wants to build virtual golf courses and there are clients who want to hire him, more power to him. So go ahead and appeal to the lowest common denominator if it puts food on the table. The world needs Jessica Simpsons so we can better understand the talent of Nina Simones.

You are right also that we have the luxury of not worrying about the economics of the golf business, but instead can obsess about the aesthetics of the sport of golf.  These are very different, and we should absolve Mr. Engh and other GCA's from what WE see as undesirable because they DO have to worry about putting food on the table.  That is a pretty big issue, IMO.

No. We don't have to show understanding. He's making good money, building courses developers want.He's making good money building these courses, so there is no reason we need to be forced to recognize his talent. He can't have it all. If he wants courses to last he is going to have to get away from the lowest common denominators. J. Simpson made a lot more money in her career than N. Simone, but Simone will still be listened to 100 years from now. I don't have to consider at all that Simpson wants to sell a ton of records. I get to choose what music and what courses I like best without worrying about their interest in putting food on their table.

Cartball courses require no skill in routing. Just build cart paths to get you from hole to hole. They can not stand up against a beautifully routed golf course. Do you really think I should ignore walkability and routing just because Engh needs to feed his family?

Cheers,
Dan King
Quote
Something very drastic ought to have been done years and years ago. Golf courses are becoming far to long. Twenty years ago we played three rounds of golf a day and considered we had taken an interminably long time if we took more than two hours to play a round. Today it's not infrequently takes over three hours.
 --Alister MacKenzie

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #295 on: October 01, 2009, 04:29:39 PM »
Jessica Simpson sings?

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #296 on: October 01, 2009, 05:37:56 PM »
dan, I'd say Billie Holiday rather than Nina Simone.  This sounds like a new thread...relating courses to music......
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #297 on: October 01, 2009, 07:55:36 PM »
A.G._Crockett writes:
Unless Engh wants to be a starving Don Quixote, he'll build what his boss wants, and what his boss will want is a golf course that appeals to the vast majority of the customer base of the golfing public.  You and I are decidedly NOT in that majority; we play much, much more golf and have very particular interests and concerns that the market simply cannot cater to.

Amen. If Engh wants to build virtual golf courses and there are clients who want to hire him, more power to him. So go ahead and appeal to the lowest common denominator if it puts food on the table. The world needs Jessica Simpsons so we can better understand the talent of Nina Simones.

You are right also that we have the luxury of not worrying about the economics of the golf business, but instead can obsess about the aesthetics of the sport of golf.  These are very different, and we should absolve Mr. Engh and other GCA's from what WE see as undesirable because they DO have to worry about putting food on the table.  That is a pretty big issue, IMO.

No. We don't have to show understanding. He's making good money, building courses developers want.He's making good money building these courses, so there is no reason we need to be forced to recognize his talent. He can't have it all. If he wants courses to last he is going to have to get away from the lowest common denominators. J. Simpson made a lot more money in her career than N. Simone, but Simone will still be listened to 100 years from now. I don't have to consider at all that Simpson wants to sell a ton of records. I get to choose what music and what courses I like best without worrying about their interest in putting food on their table.

Cartball courses require no skill in routing. Just build cart paths to get you from hole to hole. They can not stand up against a beautifully routed golf course. Do you really think I should ignore walkability and routing just because Engh needs to feed his family?

Cheers,
Dan King
Quote
Something very drastic ought to have been done years and years ago. Golf courses are becoming far to long. Twenty years ago we played three rounds of golf a day and considered we had taken an interminably long time if we took more than two hours to play a round. Today it's not infrequently takes over three hours.
 --Alister MacKenzie

Dan,
I'm trying not to be dogmatic here; help me out.  Like you, I would rather walk than ride.  Like you, I would prefer a golf course on terrain conducive to walking.  Like you, I would prefer that GCA's built ALL golf courses to make walking not only possible, but pleasant.

But you and I both know that there are many sites that just aren't that way.  My problem is that I have this crazy idea that my world gets a little better when more golf courses are built, and I realize that some will not be exactly what I want them to be, for a great variety of reasons.

I won't try to decide what constitutes the "lowest common denominator" for golf courses, and I kind of like the Simpson-Simone analogy.  I don't think, though, that any course that COULD be built to be marginally walkable (the type of course we are talking about here) automatically meets that standard just because it is built in a different way.

"Cartball courses require no skill in routing."  is the statement that I have the most trouble with, though.  I see no reason why this should be true, but I'll concede the point for a moment.  However, I think you'd have to admit that it would be at least possible to display great skill in routing only while building a mediocre golf course in order to avoid potentially better holes that would require long rides.  I have played some brilliant designs in the mountains that weren't walkable, and I marveled at how the GCA could "see" the holes before he built them; I rarely get that sense on flatter, easier terrain.  In reality, it seems to me that routing on marginal terrain is MUCH tougher, not less.

This is a hell of a position for me to be in.  I'm defending golf carts, which I hate, and riding-only courses, which I detest.  But I understand riding-only courses like Engh was talking about, and I can still admire the skill and artistry of the people that design those courses.  I really don't see what is so difficult or wrong about that, and I'll NEVER see how more courses in more places in and of itself is a bad thing for me or the game of golf.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #298 on: October 01, 2009, 08:34:23 PM »
I really don't see what is so difficult or wrong about that, and I'll NEVER see how more courses in more places in and of itself is a bad thing for me or the game of golf.

But there could be courses on these sites, walkable courses where golfers could choose to walk or ride!  Wouldn't that be better for you and the game of golf?

______________________________

Jessica Simpson sings?

To paraphrase Melvyn, whatever she is doing it shouldn't be called "singing."
« Last Edit: October 01, 2009, 08:39:29 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Sweeney

Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #299 on: October 01, 2009, 08:42:11 PM »
I really don't see what is so difficult or wrong about that, and I'll NEVER see how more courses in more places in and of itself is a bad thing for me or the game of golf.

But there could be courses on these sites, walkable courses where golfers could choose to walk or ride!  Wouldn't that be better for you and the game of golf?

David,

Are you saying that there are no golfers (cart golfers according to Melvin) that you would rather not play Rustic Canyon with on a Saturday morning? They are going to take a cart on Rustic or Lost Canyons, so why not have them go to Lost Canyons to clear a path for the real golfers at Rustic?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back