The Key to Better Golf Courses: Design for Cart Golf.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Robb,

I just hope there are some courses built in the future.....getting past the point of worrying about just what kind of courses they are.

[DMoriarty]

I would be interested to see future Doak courses if his career goes the same way.  They can't all be Ballyneal, Sandhills sites, at least if you have bills to pay!

I think each design team now has a handful of courses that could be slotted into the "they can't all be _______"  slot.  How many do they need before it is time to quit saying this?  Sure, not that all their courses are World class, but even on their lesser courses have been pretty consistent with their core approach so far, haven't they?

I believe sometimes the analysis confuses many related issues - i.e. Coore does great bunkers and his courses are walkable......in reality, Jim is talking about real mountain courses in his post.  SH is hilly, but there aren't huge mountains.  Again, I grant that CC seem to have kept most tees below the hill tops which would make it more walkable than what others might have come up with. However, it might be just as much to keep players out of the wind, too. I just don't know.  But there are a lot of interelated issues that go into any final design decision.  If Jim E is focused on the GD beauty shot when his course wins the Best New, that is certainly a different perspective than Ben going out and using his tournement experience to know that being out of the wind can be an asset on certain holes.

Huh? Surely all designers have preferences within their general approach and hopefully for them these preferences will compliment each other.  (For example, Engh's preference for concavity seems to compliment his preference to highlight his golf holes from the cart paths.)    But those few architects who are actually out there trying to build walking courses on moderate or difficult sites are putting a lot of energy and effort into making their courses walkable, don't you think?   I've been on difficult sites of both CC and Doak during construction, and walkability seemed to be very much a consideration to me.

As for what types of courses Jim Engh was talking about in his post, I think you need to look again.  He did discuss "real mountain courses" and said walking was not even a consideration.  But he then addressed more moderate courses that could possibly be walking courses where 1/2 the golfers could walk.   I think that is mostly what we are talking about here. 

Also, whether a site ends up walkable depends a lot upon the design.  For example Black Rock is in the mountains but I am not so sure that the site itself necessitated a cart course.   In fact there are only two substantial drops (the third hole and getting to the beginning of the back nine) and both of these start from about the same elevation, and at least one of these requires a substantial detour from the rest of the course.  But up on top of the ridge where most the course is located there just isn't that much elevation.  I could be misremembering, but I've been up there a few times and I don't it is that severe.    Didn't Doak say that Rock Creek had something like 350 ft. elevation change?   I would be surprised if Black Rock is close to that, even with going down below the rocks.  So is it really reasonable to claim that one is an unwalkable mountain site when the other is walkable?  Or did the design each have a lot to do with it? 

[DMoriarty]

The 50/50 debate is what confused me which is why I asked the question - "Jim, can you give an example of a 50/50 site where you elected to make it walkable instead of "cart ball"?

Rob, despite the spin that a few tried to put on it (and still do) I think Jim Engh was very clear on this issue.   On these in-between sites he is not going to pass up the chance to build a better hole for the sake of preserving walkability.   I am more curious about the courses on flattish sites.   The Nebraska one will be walkable, but I am curious about the other courses in the past on such sites.  I think I've heard Four Mile is walkable but don't know if it is walkable by design. 

Your post touches on exactly these types of courses - eg) Sand Hills, BN, RCCC, etc. - that in many architect's opinions would probably be 50/50 courses where you could take walkability away and use all available land for the course and make it great "cart golf."

Question - Are Doak and C&C just more gifted than other Architects? Do they have a vision that others do not have to create walking option courses (ie - the golfer decides), as opposed to carts only, on terrain that is either rolling or challenging?

I don't know about this.  There are a lot of designers doing very good work.  But those two teams are definitely talented, in my opinion.   And both teams seem to have definite ideas about the sort of things they'd like to do, and are stubborn enough to try to build their courses accordingly, and both teams are very good at using the subtlety of a site to their advantage.   

Mr Engh is obviously a great architect - I am not trying to slight him in any way - but what makes C&C and Doak different in their ability to deliver walkable courses on tough terrain? And could others do so if they were more committed to that "cause"?

It may not be a fair comparison because it doesn't sound to me that Mr. Engh is much concerned about designing for walkability on moderate and difficult terrain.  As for whether he could, I don't know his work enough to say.     I will say that those who base their designs around the natural site and have experience using even the most subtle undulations and features to their greatest advantage seem better suited to design walking courses, at least to me.  I think walking would be difficult to manufacture at least without great expense, so it seems like those who are used to solving problems by looking at different ways to use what is already there would be good training.

Is the cart an unnecessary crutch that architects use on difficult sites because it is "more" challenging to build a walkable course on tough terrain?

I don't want to use the term "crutch" but if the routing ends up in a deep hole, doesn't it seem that it would be a lot easier to just drive out of there and start again somewhere else, like a higher scenic spot?  (Doak does this somewhat between the 8th and 9th at RCCC, but it is the only somewhat substantial gap I can think of between green and tee   And it isn't too bad, especially because their are snacks and drinks at the bottom.)

Do Doak and Coore spend more time onsite which allows them to find these fantastic routings that are walkable?

I don't know how much time different designers spend on site routing, but I think Coore and Doak spend quite a bit of time on site working it out.  You always hear stories about Coore wandering some property for 10 days or more, and I imagine that this may be hyperbole, but he is known for figuring out the routing on site.

Is Cart Golf on potentially walkable sites the easy route out or does it in fact produce better courses? ie) in the golfing public's opinion, not just the opinion of the small group on the GCA site.

This is the question, isn't it?  And why I started this thread.  I suspect the courses suffer when they give up on walking, and in far more ways than just losing a few walkers as customers.   

[Rob Rigg]

David,

I think Jim was clear as well about where he falls on the 50/50 debate - ie) always elect to design the "better cart golf course " (my quotes).

Which is why I am curious if any of his sites presented a situation where going the "cart golf" route would not produce a large enough improvement in the design (from his perspective) so he made it walkable (even although he thought most golfers would ride)?

I wonder if the skill that it takes to route a great walking course over challenging terrain is a talent that only some GCAs possess because of how they look at their "canvas". Doak and C&C have proven on many occassions that they can take a tough site and make it walkable - perhaps this has to do with the "minimalist" approach that they take - it is innately part of how they design. As Jeff points out, both of these design teams tend to get great sites - and if I recall correctly - both design teams tend to work on only one or two projects at a time (even when the economy was on fire).

Other architects like Mr Engh, Mr Brauer or Mr Fazio, etc. have a different artistic vision of what to do with a site that may involve incorporating "outside" aesthetic opportunities as much as, or more than, internal aesthetic opportunities. If a site is "average", then perhaps the incorporation of these aesthetics that exist beyond the borders of a property will provide a better overall golfing experience for the consumer/golfer.

For one school of design, passing up a great vista from the top of a hill 100 yards away might be acceptable to keep the walker moving fairly directly from green to tee. But for another school of design that might be an unacceptable miss of a fantastic opportunity to dazzle the golfer.

I wonder what the "breakeven" is to make a course walkable or not - Bandon Trails, for example, has a great deal of elevation change incorporated into the holes, as opposed to the walks (aside from 13G to 14T). Clearly, the tee site on 14 was a "must use" - but that one "must use" did not lead C&C to decide that the course should suddenly become unwalkable and should therefore be a cart golf course. I know that BDGR is walking only, the point I am trying to make is that most walkers are okay with a few medium length green to tee walks and one or two long'ish green to tee transfers, but not more than that. Courses I grew up playing in Toronto such as Summit and Rosedale both had a lot of elevation change and/or a few long'ish green to tee transfers and both are very walkable. If those sites were available to modern gca's then who know how they would have turned out.

So, assuming that a course does not have a RE factor and is on potentially walkable terrain, by making a course virtually "carts only" an architect would need to be determined to use at least 3 or more routing parachutes to escape a "dead end" or maximize vista use.

The ODGs did not have these "get out of jail free cards" and I wonder if that is what made them make the most out of the site that they had - and helped focus them on using every single natural landform and internal countour on the course to make something special?

This is why designing for Cart Golf is never going to produce consistently superior courses on potentially walkable terrain - the constraints of a walking friendly design spur the architect to greater levels of creativity and reflection which is often evident in the routing, bunkering, greens and natural use of the land?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I think I already answered your question. Is "perspective" any different than "putting a lot of work into.....?"

I would presume that a site with 350 vertical feet of elevation would limit walking to only the hardiest souls.  What is design could make that more palatable?  It seems to be just a few items - total walking length and total uphill climb, no?

A gca can reduce total walking by designing a 7000 yard course vs a 7500 yard course, and by locating tees and greens closer together.  A golfer will necessarily walk the length of the course, and probably 15-25% more for wayward shots.  If the average tee is 150 yards from the last green vs. 50 yards, such as in a housing course, the golfer saves nearly 2000 more steps, etc.

As to vertical, on a TOC type routing on a this site, we can figure that the golfer would walk uphill a total of 350 feet.   If the course routing goes down and up a few times, that total climb could double or triple to 700 or 1000 feet.  If every tee sits on a knob 20 feet above the last green, the vertical climb could increase another 340 feet (assuming the first tee is at CH level).  If you add in Jim's green "concavity" tendency, or another gca's tendency towards elevated greens, the golfer may have to climb an additional coule of hundred of feet up to or out of the green vs. a course with ground level greens.  Also to be considered is the rate of climb - going 20 foot up to those tees might be a 33% climb, vs a long, gentle fw climb of 20 feet.

Somehow, its the total number of steps, combined with the total number of uphill steps and their steepness that determines walkability.  The "crossover" point from walkable to unwalkable varies amongst us considerably, I am sure.  It would be an interesting study among those who walk sometimes to see what the total step/vertical difference threshold might be.

[Rob Rigg]

Jeff,

If you ever hear about a study that would consider doing this please let me know - I am in

I think you have hit on one of the key questions in the Walkable/Carts Only debate - What is the threshold for walkers?

While many of us on the DG would like to see walkable courses built on all but the most extreme terrains, what is the breaking point in elevation change, green to tee transfers, steepness of inclines, etc. that make most walkers give up and get in a cart?

If this information was public knowledge, I wonder if it would encourage developers/architects on "quantifiably walkable" sites that can take advantage of great vistas/teeing grounds/etc. to make sure the course is walkable?

Somehow I doubt it - but having some numbers behind walking tendencies would be great to know. The are a bunch of Members of The Walking Golfers Society who would probably like to help as well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Robb,

As you know, many golfers never even consider walking.  Their threshold is close to zero.  And many courses remove the threshold completely by being carts only. I think the hardest part would be finding an appropriate sample size of golfers in the walk when I can, ride when I can't category, wouldn't it?

[DMoriarty]

I would presume that a site with 350 vertical feet of elevation would limit walking to only the hardiest souls.  What is design could make that more palatable?  It seems to be just a few items - total walking length and total uphill climb, no?

I am a bit surprised by this.  I am by no means one of the hardiest souls; overweight, out of shape, middle aged, and lazy is more like it.  And Rock Creek wasn't a bad walk, even at a couple of rounds a day.   Not for everyone surely but definitely reasonably walkable.  And it has ups and downs many of the holes.  To automatically assume that 350 feet change will probably mean walking only for the hardiest is not a reasonable assumption in my opinion.   My home course is considered by most to be flat as a pancake and a pretty easy walk, and even it has 250 ft. elevation change.   It is gradual, yes, and very few ups and downs during, but some of that because of design. 

As to vertical, on a TOC type routing on a this site, we can figure that the golfer would walk uphill a total of 350 feet.   If the course routing goes down and up a few times, that total climb could double or triple to 700 or 1000 feet.  If every tee sits on a knob 20 feet above the last green, the vertical climb could increase another 340 feet (assuming the first tee is at CH level).  If you add in Jim's green "concavity" tendency, or another gca's tendency towards elevated greens, the golfer may have to climb an additional coule of hundred of feet up to or out of the green vs. a course with ground level greens.  Also to be considered is the rate of climb - going 20 foot up to those tees might be a 33% climb, vs a long, gentle fw climb of 20 feet.

Many of these factors are by choice.   So the site isn't necessarily unwalkable until the designer comes in and builds a bowl for most every green and a bunch of sky line tees and then throws in some treks between holes and around stuff as well.    And this is exactly what I am saying about many of these courses and perhaps a course like Black Rock - it isn't necessarily the sites that makes them unwalkable, it is often the designs themselves.   Whether they are even aware of it or not, some designers have preferences or styles that stack the deck against walking.   Those bowls around greens that you guys apparently learned in your Nugent days are a perfect example of this.

Somehow, its the total number of steps, combined with the total number of uphill steps and their steepness that determines walkability.  The "crossover" point from walkable to unwalkable varies amongst us considerably, I am sure.  It would be an interesting study among those who walk sometimes to see what the total step/vertical difference threshold might be.

It would be interesting, but honestly I don't care much how many people will walk.      I suspect that courses built for walking are just better than those built for carts.  Even if very few walk them.   That is why I started this thread.

Hypothetically I want to put everyone in a cart.   With everyone in a cart, how could our greatest courses be better?   With everyone in a cart, could we improve these courses by changing them?    If all courses were built for cart ball how would golf change?  Would the change be for the better or for the worse?   

Is there something inherently inferior about a cart course, beyond the fact that one cannot walk it?     I think there is.   But I am curious to know what others think, which is why I started this thread.

[Jud_T]

There is clearly something inferior about a course that requires you to take a cart. This means that

1. You can't walk (duh!)
2. The course is likely to have large distances between greens and tees
3. The course is likely on an inferior piece of property. (i.e. one not ideally suited for golf)
4. The course is likely part of a real estate development where the best land is often taken for property sales
5. The course is more likely to be run by a corporation more intent on milking profit from carts than in promoting the traditional game.

However, It is clearly not a cut and dry subject.  I enjoy walking with a caddy in cool weather, but not if it's hot and humid or if I have to carry a bag or pull a cart (my knees will no longer allow it).   I understand the wrath of the walk or die crowd as caddy programs die out and people shell out $100 to play on overwatered, overmanicured courses criss-crossed by cart paths.  The worst part about cart paths is the inevitable, "I was playing the round of my life, came to 18, tugged my drive ever-so-slightly only to watch it bound off the cart path 40 yards into the hazard" lament.  The reality is that there aren't that many great pieces of property left for golf, particularly on linksland or near major cities.  The silver lining of the current economy is that the traditions of the game may very well come back out of economic necessity....god willing.

[Rob Rigg]

Robb,

As you know, many golfers never even consider walking.  Their threshold is close to zero.  And many courses remove the threshold completely by being carts only. I think the hardest part would be finding an appropriate sample size of golfers in the walk when I can, ride when I can't category, wouldn't it?

Jeff,

Absolutely, I totally agree, that is the current pickle in the US. Some golfers are fit enough to walk, but choose to exercise other ways, while others are not fit enough to walk, and choose not to exercise at all. These two groups will walk at Bandon because it is mandatory but most of the time when they are out with their regular foursome they take a cart regardless of whether the course is walkable or not.

Having some sort of demographic info on 1) those who walk if at all possible, 2) those who prefer to walk but will ride, 3) those who prefer to ride but will walk, 4) those who will only ride - would be interesting.

Then you would need to use group 2 for the analysis (because group 1 will walk unless prevented from doing so or unless the course is essentially unwalkable) and group 3 and 4 would prefer to ride or will only ride.

Of course, I am still with David on the thought that, for whatever reason, the best courses in the US are walkable despite 20 or so years of "cart golf" course construction - I threw out a couple of thoughts for discussion in my last post about why - which may or may not make sense. While having the ability to route all over the property with a cart, there are certain design elements, eg) around green complexes, where Doak points out that not having to deal with cart paths is actually quite helpful.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Robb,

As Jud points out, I didn't figure in heat or humidity in the daily decision to walk.  Good points that are outside design control.  Actually, we should add time of day - the golf cart cover comes in handy for those worried about sun burn as well as the heat.  Lastly, I have been advised on occaision to take a cart because of slow play - it gives you somewhere to sit when there are no benches in between shots to rest your lower back.

David,

I think I have been agreeing that design features are by choice, and those choices are governed by perspective. I don't think either one of us has factually addressed your contention that walking courses are simply better. Off the top of my head, I would say your assessment is governed by your perpective, nothing else. But, I guess its not facts, its opinions so its hard to disagree with you.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I think I have been agreeing that design features are by choice, and those choices are governed by perspective. I don't think either one of us has factually addressed your contention that walking courses are simply better. Off the top of my head, I would say your assessment is governed by your perpective, nothing else. But, I guess its not facts, its opinions so its hard to disagree with you.

Opinions yes, but we all base our opinions on something . . . .

What do you see as the downside (if any) of building a cart ball course?  Aside from inconveniencing walkers? 

[George Pazin]

I don't think either one of us has factually addressed your contention that walking courses are simply better. Off the top of my head, I would say your assessment is governed by your perpective, nothing else. But, I guess its not facts, its opinions so its hard to disagree with you.

So it's just a coincidence that virtually all of the top rated courses are walkable?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Yes, but your "something" has been vague so far.

Off the top of my head, the downsides are that it is likelyt to be in housing, but the cause of the cart ball is the housing, not the other way around.  Doak is right that greens and tees have to get a bit further apart when you fit in a cart path, so you lose some intimacy.  And, as I mentioned, there are some liimitations to placing hazards around greens since you must have more cirucation routes available.

But, in truth, I think maybe its just a spin on the general trend of golf and golf design - Golden Age courses were designed for a subset of golfers (rich club guys) and for their enjoyment primarily.  Courses today are designed among broader parameters that have little to do with pure golf enjoyment.  The most germain ones that cause more cart path use are environmental restrictions, housing, and the need for dramatic photos to spur possible awards, not to mention the general supersizing of America.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Yes, but your "something" has been vague so far.

Off the top of my head, the downsides are that it is likelyt to be in housing, but the cause of the cart ball is the housing, not the other way around.  Doak is right that greens and tees have to get a bit further apart when you fit in a cart path, so you lose some intimacy.  And, as I mentioned, there are some liimitations to placing hazards around greens since you must have more cirucation routes available.

The housing just creates longer walks, right?   But if this is a cart course, then who cares?   

Don't walking courses have circulation issues as well? 

But, in truth, I think maybe its just a spin on the general trend of golf and golf design - Golden Age courses were designed for a subset of golfers (rich club guys) and for their enjoyment primarily.  Courses today are designed among broader parameters that have little to do with pure golf enjoyment.  The most germain ones that cause more cart path use are environmental restrictions, housing, and the need for dramatic photos to spur possible awards, not to mention the general supersizing of America.

You say that the courses are no longer designed for "pure golf enjoyment" yet you don't come up with much of a downside to building for carts?    Do carts courses offer less "pure golf enjoyment" and what is "pure golf enjoyment" anyway.    You haven't trademarked the phrase I hope because I am intent on using it. 

[Jud_T]

Theoretically, if a course were built explicitly for cartball and not because of housing etc. you could have an interesting course, however there still would be downsides.  Seeing other holes than the one your on has aesthetic and strategic, in a match, value.  Also cart paths are visually unpleasant although this can be somewhat mitigated by material and design.  In the extreme you could have a course where you had to drive miles betweeen holes (I think there's a course like this in death valley (?)).  Imagine a Tiger/Ryder cup roar going up on a hole and no one hearing it on a subsequent hole? Golf is about place and intimacy not simply shots....

[Rob Rigg]

But, in truth, I think maybe its just a spin on the general trend of golf and golf design - Golden Age courses were designed for a subset of golfers (rich club guys) and for their enjoyment primarily.  Courses today are designed among broader parameters that have little to do with pure golf enjoyment.  The most germain ones that cause more cart path use are environmental restrictions, housing, and the need for dramatic photos to spur possible awards, not to mention the general supersizing of America.

I think this is a very interesting comment that should be explored further.

1) Did the "rich club guys" of the past realize how fantastic their courses were? Or are GCA buffs just fortunate that machinery, carts, etc. were not available in the past, because if so, those designs would probably be different.

or - Were those "rich club guys", in general, fairly sophisticated in their understanding of GCA and what does or does not make a great course?

2) Are cart golf courses simply a reflection of modern American society? ie) we're lazy, we like pretty things, we like to escape from our lives for 4 or 5 hours once a week and hang out with the lads.

3) What is "important" to modern course design is different from golden age design - ie) in the past, to learn about something people would sit down and read - a newspaper, an essay, a magazine - in the modern world - a course/developer/architect probably has one change and ten to thirty seconds to grab a golfers attn and attract their potential dollars. Hence the movement towards designs that embrace "external aesthetics" instead of "internal possibilities".

Some very walkable courses on spectacular sites - eg) Bandon, Sand Hills, BN, etc. - have been able to provide both the eye candy and the architectural substance - but on mediocre sites, the eye candy is the real opportunity to attract golfers. Thus the design itself is not as important as the aesthetic experience the routing provides?

Maybe "pure golf enjoyment" is an evolving term that "generally" means different things at different points in time, which provides a gleam of hope for the future but only a small one because most of the best sites near large population centers are gone and only the hardiest golfers will travel to Bandon, Nebraska, Eastern CO, etc. to experience modern/golden golf.

[DMoriarty]

Jud,

Thanks for your answer.  Intimacy is certainly one thing that seems to be sacrificed.  While I not sure I'd go to the extreme of citing  mile rides between holes, intimacy can be lost on a far shorter ride, especially if it takes you to a local with an entirely different feel.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Subtlety is deemed subtle for a reason, because it isn't obvious and reveals its essence (or that which it is 'hiding') only over time; or, as manifested on a golf course, only over repeated plays. There is much that is charming about subtlety, that subtle little canting of the fairway, left to right, starting 230 yards off the tee with a green that cants the other way and opens up on the left. One of its charms is historical, a reminder of the classic old courses and the works of the old great architects, and of the once-common reality of the home club/membership, a course played regularly enough to discover its subtleties. Its opposite, the spectacular, has another kind of charm: it is dependent not at all on repeated play, and has little historical resonance. Instead, it speaks of the modern game, and of the retail golfer, and of daily-fees and housing developments. In a way, the spectacular has actually become quite common, in the most derogatory sense of that word.  But all that makes it, IMO, not a whit less valid, or golfy, or challenging or fun than the subtle -- at least not necessarily or inherently so, and at least not to a goodly number, maybe ever the greater part, of today's golfers.  Yes, Myrna Loy and Rosalind Russell were not as spectacularly beautiful as Grace Kelly and Rita Hayworth, and if I had a choice (ha, ha) I'd probably still pick Myrna in her "The Thin Man" stage or Rosalind in 'His Girl Friday".  But that doesn't mean I'd want to throw Grace Kelly and Rita Hayworth under a bus. Maybe they do get a far greater share of the fame and accolades than I would want, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve it.

Oh sweet Mary, what has become of me....

Peter

[DMoriarty]

Don't you mean "Oh sweet Myrna . . .?"

Subtlety is definitely something that seems to fall by the wayside on these courses, and perhaps that is inevitable when the spectacular is just a one minute drive away. 

As for the rest, who would you rather have as your customers in the long run, those regular players who appreciate subtlety or those that are there for the awe and excitement and the spectacular view?  Which type of golfer do you suppose is better for golf?

[Garland Bayley]

I don't think either one of us has factually addressed your contention that walking courses are simply better. Off the top of my head, I would say your assessment is governed by your perpective, nothing else. But, I guess its not facts, its opinions so its hard to disagree with you.

Jeff,

You missed the origins of this idea from the other thread.

from A Call to Feet "Golf is a Walking Game", USGA, 1995, page 13. "Golf courses must be designed with walking in mind. (There is not a great course in the world that is impracticable to walk.)"

[DMoriarty]

Grassland Barley,

I know what you are saying, but I don't think the argument need be made by dictate of the USGA or any other governing body.  I suspect the walking courses are generally better golfing experiences no matter what the USGA said.   But if not, I'd like to figure that out as well.

So the question is why is a walking course inherently better?   What makes it better?   What do we lose architecturally with courses built for riding only?

[Peter Pallotta]

And there it is, David - I think. There is the heart of this thread, i.e. the underlying premise/assumption I think you're making that the subtle is better golf than the spectacular, and that having golfers who appreciate the subtle is, in the long run, better for the game of golf and its health/viability than having golfers who want and expect the spectacular.  And while I share your fondness for the subtle, I think your premise is, if not flawed, then at least not very conducive to productive discussion. That is, to suggest (and you haven't done this, but I think it's your position if taken to the exreme) that the cart-path-created spectacular golf hole and golf course is inherently or necessarily of less architectural quality than the walkable and subtle one, is to paint the issue with a very wide and indiscriminating brush. It is also to get into a very complex question that, time and again on here architects have told us is very difficult to answer, even for other working professionals i.e. whether or not an architect "has gotten the most out of a site".  Better I think to look at individual golf holes in the context of individual golf courses and to try to determine whether or not a great golf hole was missed or sacrificed in the pursuit of a spectacular one.  But if this is so, I for one admittedly could not enter that discussion, as I don't know (or remember) even one golf course well enough to start delving into its qualities so deeply. Others around here are capable of it, at least for a select number of courses.

Peter      

[Garland Bayley]

One thing we lose is many beautiful holes that would play uphill but for the exception that the GCA has ruled them out by driving to a different location. Transitively that means we lose a balance and flow of up and down which is now play down ride up, play down ride up, ...

[George Pazin]

And there it is, David - I think. There is the heart of this thread, i.e. the underlying premise/assumption I think you're making that the subtle is better golf than the spectacular, and that having golfers who appreciate the subtle is, in the long run, better for the game of golf and its health/viability than having golfers who want and expect the spectacular.  And while I share your fondness for the subtle, I think your premise is, if not flawed, then at least not very conducive to productive discussion.

I think I disagree with this, but I have to think more about it.

I'd also still like an answer to my earlier post, Jeff.