[Niall C]

In Mike Nuzzo's thread he asked why more modern courses didn't have walkbacks in them. Looking at it from the other way, how do the gca's on this site deal with possible future expansion. How far do you design it into your course or is it not a concern ?

Niall

[Adrian_Stiff]

Niall - Having generally been involved in much lower budgets, that usually involves smaller land parcels, most of my courses have been on 120 acres, so I have pushed most things to the property limits anyway. That aside, a golf course needs a range of almost 1800 yards now from back tees to front (ladies) tees, so ideally you probably want to walk back 20 and forward 80, but the land dictates most times so I think its hard to put a rule to it. If there are ever golf courses built in the UK again (and I really think its going to be very rare from now on) courses will be on much smaller parcels, in the last six or seven years Land has tripled in price and with it being marginal to make money from golf at the old price, its going to be nearer impossible paying the new land prices. Walking forwards would tend to use more land.

[Joe Bausch]

There are some of these at Erin Hills.  Here is the routing, where the yellow dots are the back tee locations:

[Garland Bayley]

In Mike Nuzzo's thread he asked why more modern courses didn't have walkbacks in them. Looking at it from the other way, how do the gca's on this site deal with possible future expansion. How far do you design it into your course or is it not a concern ?

Niall

Because according to the terminology of Mike's thread, there is no such thing as a walkforward. No one is going to walk back the length of a hole to a tee, then turn around and walk forward over the hole to get to the next tee. They will simply leave the green and go to the nearby tee.

[Niall C]

Garland

The term walkforward wasn't really meant to be taken too literally. What I was getting at was what gca's generally did to future proof their designs to allow for ever increasing distances that players can hit a ball.

Adrian

I must admit I am less pessimistic than you when it comes to course building. I suspect that there will always be reasons for courses to be built other than to turn a profit. I just think its very easy to project a grim future given the present economic crisis.

Joe

Thanks for that. That certainly doesn't look like a small site. Do you know what the acreage is ?

Niall

[Adrian_Stiff]

Niall - There will be some, but I think reasons other than the present ecogloom exist as well. Over supply, less people playing, younger population dont exercise, land prices soaring. Some of these things could change a bit, but really golf courses only need to be built where there are not enough golf courses and in the UK we probably dont have much of a niche for new ones, anyone trying to pitch a new one into a supplied market is taking a big risk now, a site would need to be exceptional, funding would be difficult, but there will always be an odd one and ofcourse I absolutely hope I am miles wrong.

[Adam Lawrence]

Linearity of modern courses is a big problem in my book. I have played and seen so many courses, clearly built with a cart mindset, where you have to walk past the back tees to get to the ones you actually want to play from. So it doesn't matter if you play from 6,200 yards - you still have to walk all 7,400 (plus the gaps between holes). The yellow tee, all other things being equal, should always be the one closest to the previous green - but lots of modern designers miss this seemingly obvious point.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adam - Its not always possible to get the yellow tees nearest you really just have to use the land best. Not all courses are 7400 yards either but the need for this huge variation from the very backs to the ladies does create more forward walking on the longer courses. Its certainly not a missed obvious point at all by some designers.

[Adam Lawrence]

You don't say Adrian. Hence "all other things being equal"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()