[Jason Topp]

I say no.  Walking is what separates golf from pinochle, bowling or blackjack.  

A cart course might be the best solution at a particular location but a course cannot be great if it cannot be walked in a reasonable manner.  

If someone has a contrary view, I would love to hear it.

[PCCraig]

Jason,

Can you define "cart course" and "walked in a reasonable manner?" Of course, different people would have different views as to what is reasonably walk-able. When I took a trip out west earlier in the year I was told at three different courses that either no one walks or that the walk was too difficult. I walked them all and didn't play any in over 4 hours.

I almost think a better question would be can a course be great if you can't reasonably walk 36 in a day on it.

[Gary Slatter]

First I am unsure what a "cart course" is, but while I'm waiting to find out I would have to say, yes, as golf carts have nothing to do with how great a course is.   Golf carts allow old people to play more but I've never seen them ruin a great round.

I dislike courses that have 18 hole mandatory cart paths, as they do not allow people who need carts to enjoy the game, they just add 45 minutes or more to the round.

Highland Links is a great course, to most it is a cart course (although in September we followed 4 walkers who played in less than four hours).

Walking is nice for those who can, it has nothing to do with great golf courses (in spite of what less than a dozen great courses think).

[Michael George]

I think a course can definitely be great if it is a cart course.   Golf can, and does, mean different things to different people .... And that is a wonderful thing.  The groupthink on this site does not represent the only way to look at golf courses.

I think there are plenty of people that think courses like Ballyhack and Dismal River White and Pete Dye GC and Arcadia Bluffs are great and 100% of their play is carts.   I don't have a monopoly on deciding what is a great golf course so I don't think they are wrong.

[Joe Sponcia]

...sounds like your not a big Norman fan.

[Ben Kodadek]

Maybe not. But they can be a hell of a lot of fun. 

[Jason Thurman]

I think there are plenty of people that think courses like Ballyhack and Dismal River White and Pete Dye GC and Arcadia Bluffs are great and 100% of their play is carts.   I don't have a monopoly on deciding what is a great golf course so I don't think they are wrong.

Doesn't Arcadia have caddies?

I think the answer to the original post comes down to what you consider "great" and what you consider a "cart course." I try not to throw the word "great" around too casually. I think the truly great courses in the world at least afford the option of walking. It's the way I prefer to play, and so it's a pretty big knock if it's totally unreasonable to think I could do it.

Then again, I'm pretty sure I could walk and carry every course I've played, and there are only about five I can think of that I wouldn't enjoy carrying. The ease of the walk is one criterion for me, but a tough walk isn't an automatic disqualifier from greatness. Crystal Downs, the Dunes course at The Prairie Club, Erin Hills, and Blackwolf Run aren't easy walks in my eyes. But they are walkable enough to enjoy, and I do think they're all great.

[Garland Bayley]

This question has been asked a few times on here. One answer is that there are simply great golf holes that cannot accommodate carts. Or, to put it another way, if you require a course have carts, you are eliminating some great holes.

Tom has written on this issue. I can't recall exactly, but I'm thinking he listed Pacific Dunes #16 is a hole that would not exist if carts were a requirement. He had a list of such holes.

[John Kavanaugh]

No course that mandates how you play is great.

[Mike_Young]

Another way to view it is :  How many of the top 50 courses in any of the rankings have wall-to-wall cart paths?  I know of one..and there may be a few more but not many...

[Bill_McBride]

Another way to view it is :  How many of the top 50 courses in any of the rankings have wall-to-wall cart paths?  I know of one..and there may be a few more but not many...

Pebble?

[Mike_Young]

Yep?

[Chris DeToro]

I can't say that a great course can't have cart paths, but I agree that walking is part of what makes golf.  Going beyond even just the pure aesthetic nature of it and building great courses, part of golf is the physical aspect of walking, enjoying nature, and conversing with your playing partners.  All of which are lost, in my opinion, when you hop in a cart

[Peter Pallotta]

Jason - just riffing off of what Gary and Pat said (and with apologies, because this might be taking it far afield from what you want to discuss, but):

I think yours is the perfect question through which to see the subjective-objective debate.  (Rankings and ratings attempt/pretend to offer as close to an objective standard of greatness possible, calling on a wide range of golfers and a set of specific criteria to bolster their case; the awe-inspired individual golfer coming off the 18th green of a hidden gem he's never played or even heard about before but sharing his muddily-worded feelings about his personal experience of that course provides the subjective counterpart.)  "Objectively" speaking, it's hard for me to imagine a great a cart-ball course, since almost by definition the routing will be disjointed and the flow will be interrupted and, very likely, the views will be front and centre. But for an older golfer, say, who may have to take a cart even at a 6,000 yard golden age course, his 'subjective' experience of this great course is as wonderful -- to him -- as what the 'objective' rankings promise any and all of us walking golfers on any and all of the Top 10 privates in America. And for me, that subjective experience is what golf is actually all about, and what architecture should be all about.

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

Walking lost its charm with the introduction of the double strap bag. I can't hardly stand looking at "them" and the clicking of the irons is inexcusable.

[Garland Bayley]

Walking lost its charm with the introduction of the double strap bag. I can't hardly stand looking at "them" and the clicking of the irons is inexcusable.

John,

The clicking of the irons has always been there. My irons were clicking 50 years ago, and they still click.
Riding has no charm for me.

[BHoover]

Walking lost its charm with the introduction of the double strap bag. I can't hardly stand looking at "them" and the clicking of the irons is inexcusable.

Melvyn? Just kidding. Personally, I'd prefer to walk if at all possible. But that doesn't mean I'm diametrically opposed to cart golf at all times. There are times when golf with a cart can be fun. There are courses that can be great fun with a cart.

[Chris Johnston]

My host rode in a cart at AGNC.  It's a pretty good course.

Sand Hills allows carts, probably more than 50% of play.  It's pretty good too.

[Ronald Montesano]

No course that mandates how you play is great.

Driving a cart does not mandate "how" you play, from my vantage point.

In fact, I find all-or-nothing threads to be irritating and pungent. I am amazed that adults people have the temerity to say things like "can a BLANK ever be BLANK" and then say "In my opinion, No." Inflexibility should be outlawed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I say no.  Walking is what separates golf from pinochle, bowling or blackjack.  

And what if a disability prevents you from walking, does that make it an inferior golf course ?

A cart course might be the best solution at a particular location but a course cannot be great if it cannot be walked in a reasonable manner.  

What does "reasonable manner"  mean ?

If someone has a contrary view, I would love to hear it.

I had great difficulty walking Sand Hills, does that disqualify it from "great" status ?

[Shane Wright]

I think Highland Links and Sand Hills are great golf courses.  And I actually think Highland Links is an easier 36 hole walk than Sand Hills.  I wouldn't say they are cart courses, but definitely a lot of play comes in carts as they are not super walker friendly.  IMHO both their routings are top 10-15 in the world.  

[Jason Topp]

I am not trying to dictate how one plays a course or how they enjoy it.  However, if a course design fails to present abreasonable opportunity to walk, i do not think it can be considered among the best. I cannot think of an exception to that rule. Sand Hills is a very pleasant walk in my book. Most people play 36 so naturally there will be a lot of carts there.

[Jason Topp]

"I think yours is the perfect question through which to see the subjective-objective debate.  (Rankings and ratings attempt/pretend to offer as close to an objective standard of greatness possible, calling on a wide range of golfers and a set of specific criteria to bolster their case; the awe-inspired individual golfer coming off the 18th green of a hidden gem he's never played or even heard about before but sharing his muddily-worded feelings about his personal experience of that course provides the subjective counterpart.)  "Objectively" speaking, it's hard for me to imagine a great a cart-ball course, since almost by definition the routing will be disjointed and the flow will be interrupted and, very likely, the views will be front and centre. But for an older golfer, say, who may have to take a cart even at a 6,000 yard golden age course, his 'subjective' experience of this great course is as wonderful -- to him -- as what the 'objective' rankings promise any and all of us walking golfers on any and all of the Top 10 privates in America. And for me, that subjective experience is what golf is actually all about, and what architecture should be all about."

 Peter

I understand the perspective Peter.  It is the search for objective criteria that led me to this thread.  My alternate thought was a thread exploring whether 'any notions of objective criteria are baloney"  I do think there is an objective difference in quality between golf courses although I struggle to define it.

My notion of quality is independent of how one chooses to experience a course.  I am perfectly happy taking carts around a golf course, enjoy doing so and do not begrudge others that want to experience a course in such a fashion. I suspect I have played more rounds with participants on this board in carts than I have walking.  I do not think carts detract from fond memories of those experiences.    

Nonetheless I do not think it is desirable to define quality in golf course architecture based solely on subjective criteria.  Otherwise we could all identify what we like and there would be no basis for resolving the debate - it comes down to a choice such as your favorite flavor of ice cream.

I have struggled to define quality in architecture beyond subjective tastes.  My best shot is that subjective experience informs, but does not define greatness in golf course architecture.  Objective criteria are necessary but not sufficient to fully explain greatness.  One objective criteria I think holds up quite well is whether or not the course offers a reasonable and interesting walk.  All great courses I am familiar with do offer such an experience.  Those that do not cannot meet my definition of a great golf course even though some of them rank among my favorite subjective experiences in the game and likely were the best approach given the particular setting and clientele  (Cabo del Sol Ocean and Kapalua Plantation).

I suspect this viewpoint comports with course rankings.  I cannot think of any courses that would be considered among the very best that would not fit this criteria.

[Jason Topp]

I say no.  Walking is what separates golf from pinochle, bowling or blackjack.  

And what if a disability prevents you from walking, does that make it an inferior golf course ?
It has nothing to do with the quality of the course.  It impacts the way in which you personally might be able to experience it

A cart course might be the best solution at a particular location but a course cannot be great if it cannot be walked in a reasonable manner.  

What does "reasonable manner"  mean ?

I do not think the definition is too difficult and if there are a couple of courses that come close to the line, it is a matter of debate relating to that course rather than a question of whether the criteria is valid

If someone has a contrary view, I would love to hear it.

I had great difficulty walking Sand Hills, does that disqualify it from "great" status ?

No.  Many people walk Sand Hills with ease.  It is not as easy a walk as some other courses but it is a reasonable walk in my view

[Anthony_Nysse]

Harbour Town is considered great by many on the site. It's cart path only most of the year. TPC Sawgrass is CPO 7-8 months of the year...at $350/round.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()