[John Kavanaugh]

For a meal to be great it must be eaten, for a song to be great it must be heard, for a course to be great it must be played.

[Dan Kelly]

The hard part is persuading others that your own subjective criteria (e.g., a great course must be easy to walk) must be ours, as well!

Emoticon (but not exclamation point) omitted.

Dan,  Is it possible you are talking about personal preference rather than subjective criteria?

When I think about whether a course is great, I try to consider more than just my personal tastes and preferences.   For example, I am a short hitter and a crappy golfer but, ideally, I think a "great" golf course ought to be enjoyable to all levels of golfers, not just the short hitting crappy golfers like me.   My criterion (enjoyable for all levels of golfers) is subjective, but it is not merely a personal preference. I am at least trying to look beyond my own interaction with the course to consider how other golfers interact

On almost all courses built for walking, the cart-ballers are accommodated.   And where cart-ballers are not allowed it is usually by mandate and not because of the architecture.   But on true cart-ball courses, walking is practically impossible whatever the rule.  

No. I am not talking about personal preferences. Like you and everyone else here, I try to judge a course, insofar as I judge courses, by trying to see how it accommodates varied styles and skills.

My clear personal preference is for courses that are comfortably walkable. I am just unwilling to write off as inherently  not great any course that does not meet my own preference.

[Patrick_Mucci]

No course that mandates how you play is great.

Apparently Old Mac, Pac Dunes, Erin Hills, Bandon Trails, Bandon Dunes, Muirfield, and.....wait for it......Ballyneal are but mere goat tracks based on this criteria.  When I get to the bottom of page 57 of the latest compendium of annotated Proust I fully intend to find a veiled dig at Ballyneal from a closeted French Dismal member....

Don't forget St. Andrews and Ballybunion and a host of other U.K. courses that don't allow carts.  And Merion and Pine Valley.

Tom,

Pine Valley permits carts

[DMoriarty]

No. I am not talking about personal preferences. Like you and everyone else here, I try to judge a course, insofar as I judge courses, by trying to see how it accommodates varied styles and skills.

My clear personal preference is for courses that are comfortably walkable. I am just unwilling to write off as inherently  not great any course that does not meet my own preference.

Any standard of greatness is going to write off a pretty large segment of golf courses, isn't it?   What are your standards for a great golf course?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

The hard part is persuading others that your own subjective criteria (e.g., a great course must be easy to walk) must be ours, as well!

Emoticon (but not exclamation point) omitted.

Dan,  Is it possible you are talking about personal preference rather than subjective criteria?

When I think about whether a course is great, I try to consider more than just my personal tastes and preferences.   For example, I am a short hitter and a crappy golfer but, ideally, I think a "great" golf course ought to be enjoyable to all levels of golfers, not just the short hitting crappy golfers like me.   My criterion (enjoyable for all levels of golfers) is subjective, but it is not merely a personal preference. I am at least trying to look beyond my own interaction with the course to consider how other golfers interact

On almost all courses built for walking, the cart-ballers are accommodated.   And where cart-ballers are not allowed it is usually by mandate and not because of the architecture.  

David, In general I'd agree, except with regard to Bayonne, where the architecture prohibits cart use.



But on true cart-ball courses, walking is practically impossible whatever the rule.  

[DMoriarty]

Patrick, I don't know anything about Bayonne, but I figured there might be some such courses where the architect prohibited carts.  I can imagine a course where the architecture prohibits carts altogether but there can't be many such courses.

[John Kavanaugh]

When the baby boomers die, golf dies. Carts are the pacemaker keeping the game alive. Who is going to pay the bills at the walking only courses when we quit paying dues?  I give it ten years at most.

[Bob_Garvelink]

Carts are a way of life.......I don't see many walking courses in the future.......the younger generations are all about saving time

[DMoriarty]

Barney tries to turn all these threads into screeds against walking ONLY courses (gee, I wonder why.)  But this thread isn't about Ballyneal or any other walking ONLY courses.  It is about courses where it is practically impossible to walk.


Bob,  The "saving time" presumption doesn't apply at cart-ball courses I have played.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Our world today demands a freedom of choice. I don't like mandatory cart ball, caddie or walking courses. I see no reason why people can not enjoy the game in any manner they choose. How can any course be considered great that discriminates against 50% of all golfers?  

We live in a time, as we all should, where a sign that reads "Not Welcome" is a barrier to greatness.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Just an aside - it's interesting how gca.com has evolved over its 15+ years or so. I came to it relatively late, but have been here for quite a while now. When I read/think about the site's 'mission statement' and Ran's profiles (and the courses he chooses to profile) and some of the thousands of threads about what characterizes great design, and the genius of golden age routings, and naturalism and minimalism, and intangibles like flow and pace, and the countless top 10 and top 100 lists classic and modern....anyway, when I read/think about all that, and then see this topic and where it goes and the different view points, I detect a movement (a bit blurry, a bit halting but a movement nonetheless) from the purist to the populist, from the idealistic to the practical. The purist/idealist in me is sort of sad about this; the practical populist in me sees it as a good thing. Maybe gca, like much else, is indeed a moveable feast...it's just that we 're so close to our food and so rarely get up from the table that we don't even realize it!

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

Walking has no more to do with golf than it has to do with getting to school. It's your Father's story.

[Michael Whitaker]

We live in a time, as we all should, where a sign that reads "Not Welcome" is a barrier to greatness.  

This coming from the champion of exclusivity? Can't have it both ways big boy.

[Bill Seitz]

Our world today demands a freedom of choice. I don't like mandatory cart ball, caddie or walking courses. I see no reason why people can not enjoy the game in any manner they choose. How can any course be considered great that discriminates against 50% of all golfers?  

We live in a time, as we all should, where a sign that reads "Not Welcome" is a barrier to greatness.  

Most golf courses at the top of the rankings lists discriminate against 99.99999999% of all golfers. As do the two at which you hold memberships (and, to be fair, the one at which I hold a membership).

[Jason Topp]

No. I am not talking about personal preferences. Like you and everyone else here, I try to judge a course, insofar as I judge courses, by trying to see how it accommodates varied styles and skills.

Hey Dan - that is an objective standard!  You are starting to see the light.

[John Kavanaugh]

Our world today demands a freedom of choice. I don't like mandatory cart ball, caddie or walking courses. I see no reason why people can not enjoy the game in any manner they choose. How can any course be considered great that discriminates against 50% of all golfers?  

We live in a time, as we all should, where a sign that reads "Not Welcome" is a barrier to greatness.  

Most golf courses at the top of the rankings lists discriminate against 99.99999999% of all golfers. As do the two at which you hold memberships (and, to be fair, the one at which I hold a membership).

Please, they let me join, who the hell are they not gonna let play?

[Bill Seitz]

Our world today demands a freedom of choice. I don't like mandatory cart ball, caddie or walking courses. I see no reason why people can not enjoy the game in any manner they choose. How can any course be considered great that discriminates against 50% of all golfers?  

We live in a time, as we all should, where a sign that reads "Not Welcome" is a barrier to greatness.  

Most golf courses at the top of the rankings lists discriminate against 99.99999999% of all golfers. As do the two at which you hold memberships (and, to be fair, the one at which I hold a membership).

Please, they let me join, who the hell are they not gonna let play?

Fair point. The membership standards at Victoria, Dismal, and Kingsley aren't quite the same as at, say, Augusta and Chicago Golf. The thrust of my point is still correct. I retract that second sentence.

[Tim Leahy]

Based on the criterion given a course that is not walkable AND not drivable should not be considered great. Pebble Beach seems to cover both sides and so does Spyglass Hill. Why is a cart free course any different than a carts only course except in the minds of walkers? A great course should be able to accomodate an inobtrusive cart path. I dont recall ever noticing the paths on Pebble or Spyglass.

[Tom_Doak]

I dont recall ever noticing the paths on Pebble or Spyglass.

You don't notice the paths at Pebble because they are so far out to the left on the coastal holes that they provide a horrible golf experience for those who use them.

[Jud_T]

I can attest to the fact that the paths at Pebble are a joke.  I played a cart-path only round there with my dad who was in need of a knee replacement.  The experience has probably tainted my view of the course ever since.

[Sean_A]

Pietro is right. I too sense a trend toward big golf on hard to manage sites for the walker being not only acceptable, but desirable.  Its a changing of attitudes based on the available land, which is in the main out in the boondocks if we are talking about the best courses built in recent years. There seems to be a notion that a small footprint with a huge horizon won't work - I am not sure where that idea came from.  I just played two courses which couldn't be different in terms of footprint.  One is about 100 acres, the other maybe 750+ acres.  The big footprint course which is walkable, but not IMO a pleasant walk (which I think is the more apt question) nor one which enhances the round in the way golfers would like, is definitely a better course, maybe even a great course.  Yet the smaller course would be imo far better for weekly play.  I guess my point is that many of thee new great courses which are a pain to walk are not really geared toward the weekly player.  They are designed to wow golfers who turn up 4 times a year.  We can argue whether or not  these courses can be truly great or if the trend toward that style of golf is positive.  It doesn't really matter. 

I fall in line with Jason, but my idea of walkable is likely very different.  I think the 18 hole walk should enhance the experience and that the walk should be doable for 75 year olds.  Anything south of that earns demerits from me, but a truly wonderful golf course on a hard walking site is imo possible to build.  I don't like the trend toward large footprint golf because I think its all part of the wasteful golf mentality of excess, but its a big world and sometimes courses can be so compelling that nothing else matters much.

Ciao   

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

It is, of course, a much different question in the UK, where there are no "cart courses" and the question is only about the degree of difficulty of the walk.  I think Jason's original premise is about courses that are designed to be played out of carts, and don't really consider the walker.  There are many of those in the US, and many of them on sites where it was certainly possible to have built a walkable course instead, but the people with the $$$ wanted it different, usually because of real estate interests.

In some sense, this debate is similar to the one that used to go on here a lot -- whether it was possible to have a great course as part of a housing development.  There are some people rating for the magazines who put a -10 on the card when a course is part of a development, because they don't like the idea of homes intruding on the course.  Again, that's a black and white way of looking at it, and even the fiercest opponents of "development golf" just ignore that many great courses [Merion, Pine Valley] have homes on the outside, and that some [St. George's Hill, Muirfield Village] were built around housing.  And again, as with the golf cart argument, they ignore the economic reality, which is that many courses wouldn't be built at all if it hadn't been for the housing.

[Tom_Doak]

Just an aside - it's interesting how gca.com has evolved over its 15+ years or so. I came to it relatively late, but have been here for quite a while now. When I read/think about the site's 'mission statement' and Ran's profiles (and the courses he chooses to profile) and some of the thousands of threads about what characterizes great design, and the genius of golden age routings, and naturalism and minimalism, and intangibles like flow and pace, and the countless top 10 and top 100 lists classic and modern....anyway, when I read/think about all that, and then see this topic and where it goes and the different view points, I detect a movement (a bit blurry, a bit halting but a movement nonetheless) from the purist to the populist, from the idealistic to the practical. The purist/idealist in me is sort of sad about this; the practical populist in me sees it as a good thing. Maybe gca, like much else, is indeed a moveable feast...it's just that we 're so close to our food and so rarely get up from the table that we don't even realize it!

Peter

Peter:

An excellent observation.  I have spent much of the past 15 years trying to straddle this tightrope ... honoring all the traditions of the game I learned from the gatekeepers here and abroad, while trying to deal with the real world in which many/most developers don't care about any of that.

In general, I think I've done okay at it, though it is increasingly frustrating to participate here and listen to the black and white thinkers insist that it's their way or the highway.  I used to be more like that, too, I guess  but I have learned that there is a difference between having principles and making ultimatums.

The person who fascinates me the most in this regard is Mike Keiser.  He is able to straddle the line deftly.  Some consider him a devout traditionalist because he builds courses for walkers, but his opinions about golf holes are decidedly populist -- that people like elevated tees and water views, and we should give them what they want!  The combination seems to be working very well for him so far.

[jeffwarne]

Just an aside - it's interesting how gca.com has evolved over its 15+ years or so. I came to it relatively late, but have been here for quite a while now. When I read/think about the site's 'mission statement' and Ran's profiles (and the courses he chooses to profile) and some of the thousands of threads about what characterizes great design, and the genius of golden age routings, and naturalism and minimalism, and intangibles like flow and pace, and the countless top 10 and top 100 lists classic and modern....anyway, when I read/think about all that, and then see this topic and where it goes and the different view points, I detect a movement (a bit blurry, a bit halting but a movement nonetheless) from the purist to the populist, from the idealistic to the practical. The purist/idealist in me is sort of sad about this; the practical populist in me sees it as a good thing. Maybe gca, like much else, is indeed a moveable feast...it's just that we 're so close to our food and so rarely get up from the table that we don't even realize it!

Peter

The person who fascinates me the most in this regard is Mike Keiser.  He is able to straddle the line deftly.  Some consider him a devout traditionalist because he builds courses for walkers, but his opinions about golf holes are decidedly populist -- that people like elevated tees and water views, and we should give them what they want!  The combination seems to be working very well for him so far.

There's no doubt that's true in the public/resort market.
Particularly with the views he's selling, and the fact that he's generally dealing with destination resorts.

I will say that we've lowered 9 sets of tees (taking out 700 vertical feet of walking), and only elevated one (while shortening the walk greatly) and they have been highly praised appreciated by an overwhelmingly and surprisingly large majority of the membership.
The very few who don't like the new lower tees, and complain about the lack of elevation/views, are invariably older players or those with a medical certificate (i.e. cart users who rode to the top).

So speaking from a high end walking private club perspective, I'd say while views may initially sell the memberships (and we have plenty of views despite all the lowering)
The added walk up views wear thin, and I'd it's the dramatically improved walkability that maintains the membership levels, and more importantly adds greatly to the enjoyment of the actual playing of the course.

[Jud_T]

I think Sean's question is the better one, i.e. is the course EASILY walkable.  Any course is theoretically walkable, even on courses where walking isn't allowed or encouraged.  There are courses, i.e. see the Crystal Downs vs. Kingsley thread, that are top notch but yet a significant percentage of the membership uses carts as the walk is fairly strenuous. (of course in the states there are dead flat courses on small properties where a significant percentage of players use carts as well).  Yet another reason why the Old Course is the standard by which all else should be measured...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()