[Matt Glore]

Harbor Shores is nearly un-walkable.  The distance from 6 FW to 6 Green is long, 6 green to 7 tee box is Very Long, 9 green to 10 tee box is CRAZY long- and there are more long walks from green to next tee.

But who cares? The golfers playing will not opt to walk this course.  The routing between houses, beach area, and heavily wooded areas all in one round make it a good golf course. 

[Mark Pritchett]

I think of Ben's Porch as the de facto "Clubhouse" for Sand Hills, so in my view the course does start at the clubhouse.   

[Lou_Duran]

Harbor Shores is nearly un-walkable.  The distance from 6 FW to 6 Green is long, 6 green to 7 tee box is Very Long, 9 green to 10 tee box is CRAZY long- and there are more long walks from green to next tee.

But who cares? The golfers playing will not opt to walk this course.  The routing between houses, beach area, and heavily wooded areas all in one round make it a good golf course. 

Apparently those who believe if it can't be walked, it ain't golf.

To the Yank:  Nah, I could not be mistaken in this instance.  It was at Pennard where I was getting waxed in the Sunday A.M. round by Lorne Smith and you were having a hard time against Conrad.   You said something about looking forward to the "proper English supper" (which I thought it was odd since we hadn't had lunch yet) waiting for us at the clubhouse.  Anyways, the dining room was hopping and the food was very good, buoying my spirits for the afternoon singles matches which went a little better.

David Moriarty- I was not complaining about CPC.  It is my favorite course in the world and the two referenced transitions add to the experience.  My point, as I am sure you know, is that we readily accept lengthy transitions in the type of architecture we like while condemning the same in the type we don't.  Of course, I totally disagree with your characterization of modern architecture and the notion that golfers need to be led by their nose to the type of golf that is better for them.  Fortunately for me, I can have a great time playing at Rustic Canyon and Dismal River White or Red.

[Matthew Petersen]

I shall nominate the Canyon Course at Ventana Canyon in Tucson, AZ, the only course I've played that requires a map to negotiate the cart ride from the 9th green to the 10th tee.   

A mere .85 miles (straight up the mountain, mostly), Tom!

[MClutterbuck]

Sometimes the joy of having a great golf course on a great location that you love and offers all sorts of other activities, requires the compromise of golf carts, for most people.

We are finalizing the first 9 holes of a Greg Norman course on a 1040 hectare / 2570 acre mountain site, where Norman was given full freedom to locate the best routing and holes anywhere on the property. Due to the dramatic landscape and elevation difference (the 5th green is at 3150 feet above sea level and the 11th tee is at  3800 feet above sea level), and to avoid severe uphill holes, the routing needed 2 long hikes/drives up severe slopes from green to tee. A 270 yard-long 130 vertical feet climb to 6 tees (walkable for a fit person only) and a 660 yard-long 315 vertical climb from 9 green to 10 tee.

For somebody that wants to walk the course, the club will have a shuttle from 9 green, through the club house and onto 10 tees while you enjoy the views of the Patagonian Andes and the 18th hole that drops 275 feet from tee to green. From tee to green, only 2 par 5s have significant uphills, but certainly walkable.

Is it ideal? It is not. But I am hoping the course has a ton of elements that appeal widely to folks on this site, including the very wide fescue fairways, mutiple strategies within the corridors, the dry fast conditions on green surrounds that allow for imaginative play and 360 degrees of unique views that make each hole different.

[Chris Johnston]

Sometimes the joy of having a great golf course on a great location that you love and offers all sorts of other activities, requires the compromise of golf carts, for most people.

We are finalizing the first 9 holes of a Greg Norman course on a 1040 hectare / 2570 acre mountain site, where Norman was given full freedom to locate the best routing and holes anywhere on the property. Due to the dramatic landscape and elevation difference (the 5th green is at 3150 feet above sea level and the 11th tee is at  3800 feet above sea level), and to avoid severe uphill holes, the routing needed 2 long hikes/drives up severe slopes from green to tee. A 270 yard-long 130 vertical feet climb to 6 tees (walkable for a fit person only) and a 660 yard-long 315 vertical climb from 9 green to 10 tee.

For somebody that wants to walk the course, the club will have a shuttle from 9 green, through the club house and onto 10 tees while you enjoy the views of the Patagonian Andes and the 18th hole that drops 275 feet from tee to green. From tee to green, only 2 par 5s have significant uphills, but certainly walkable.

Is it ideal? It is not. But I am hoping the course has a ton of elements that appeal widely to folks on this site, including the very wide fescue fairways, mutiple strategies within the corridors, the dry fast conditions on green surrounds that allow for imaginative play and 360 degrees of unique views that make each hole different.

Sounds interesting and looks like a beautiful spot.  Best of luck and may you have success!

[DMoriarty]

Lou,  I understood your point about CPC.  My point is that your comparison is inapt.  There is no hypocrisy in accepting two short strolls at one the best and most beautiful walking courses anywhere, while at the same time condemning lazy, lengthy, repetitive, and unnecessary cart-ball transitions at lesser courses.

As for the rest, you have mischaracterized my "characterization of modern architecture."  Last I checked, this is supposed to be a website where we try to understand golf course architecture, and this means  trying to understand the impact that certain architectural decisions have on the game of golf!  A golf course's "architecture" impacts the decisions made by the golfer, whether it is what club to hit, whether or not to ride, or even whether to play a particular course.  I'd hardly call that "leading the golfer by the nose," but if any architect is "leading the golfer by the nose," it is the architect who is building courses where walking is impractical, impossible, or even unlikely.

I prefer courses that encourage and accommodate walking, just as I prefer courses that encourage and accommodate ground game options and varieties of angles of attack and modes of play.  This doesn't mean that every golfer must use the ground game, or that every golfer must walk.  But golf architecture is generally better, IMO, when it encourages and accommodates such things.
__________________________________________


I am really surprised that people are having such a hard time understanding and accepting this point.  It is not really all that novel or controversial.  If we make golf much more convenient to ride than walk, then more golfers will ride.  If we put golfers in carts before their round, we increase the likelihood that they will stay in those carts during the round.  Arhcitects know this, or at least they should.  For example, while Tom Doak really hates when I bring this up, his past comments on the issue indicate that he agrees with me on the point and considers this very issue in his designs! At least Tom used to agree with me before he built Dismal Red.  

I am not suggesting it should never be done. I understand why it happens. I am just pointing out that such architectural decisions impact how golfers choose to enjoy the game.

[John Kavanaugh]

Life is about where you live not how you live. News flash, just cause driving in LA feels like walking...

Life for you seems to be about where you troll.  I wish you'd find somewhere new.

+1

David,

You are now making the insulting argument that if a golfer who loves to walk is given a cart for free he will choose to ride.  In other words, you are saying that walkers walk because they are cheap.  That is simply not true.

Bandon and Streamsong would both be much more desirable destinations if you were given a personal cart to drive about the properties upon check in.  It has nothing to do with walking or not and everything to do with convenience. 

[Chris Johnston]

David,

Knowing that you have never seen Dismal Red, nor had the privilege of visiting the club at all, it really is impossible for you to know what you are talking about.  Fact is, a large percentage of players do indeed ride to the course and walk on the course.  While we are an outlier, a guest uses his, or her, golf cart as a means of transport throughout the property, including to and from accommodations, to and from meals, and to and from the two courses.  I guess you have to see it to understand.

The important thing here is we don't force people to ride, and we don't force them to walk.  Some do, and some don't and that choice is completety their own, as golfers and adults, to make. 

I'll share another thing with you, and I'm sure most of those who have visited will agree, we are different.  Folks here don't play 18 holes and drive home to mow the yard.  Most people play at least 36 holes, and oftentimes 54 holes or more for several days straight.  Most walk the early rounds, and many then choose to ride later rounds.  Why? It can be very hot, and can actually be dangerous (for many) to walk all day.  That, my friend, doesn't make them any way inferior, it makes them wise.

Also, try bring your 83 year old dad, and force him to walk 18 in high summer heat in the Sandhills.  Mine won't, and I very much enjoy playing and being with him in his later years. 

There is nothing wrong with golf carts and, for many, they serve a purpose...enjoyment of the game we love.

Tom Doak built a wonderful and very walkable course in the Sandhills.  He didn't kill any sacred cows. 

[DMoriarty]

Kavanaugh,

Quit putting words in my mouth. I didn't say a word about charging or not charging for carts, nor did I say walkers are cheap, although I am sure some of them are.

Anything that makes walking harder, less convenient, or relatively more expensive, makes walking less likely.  Anything that makes riding easier, more convenient, or relatively less expensive makes riding more likely.  
________________________________________

Chris Johnston,

I wasn't talking specifically about Dismal River, but about broader architectural issues.  That is what I do.  I discuss golf architecture, including the broader issues that may or may not be applicable to your club.  I wouldn't expect you to understand that, because you are obviously here to market your course, and any discussion of golf course architecture seems to be of a secondary concern, at best.  

In that regard, I hope you won't be offended, but I barely skimmed your post.  I am not interesting in yet another hard sell infomercial about for your club, and I don't think this is an appropriate venue for such things.  

I am not interested in discussing it with you further, but if you really don't understand how placing golfers in carts increases the chances that they will ride, then take it up with Tom Doak.  He understands it.  Or at least he use to.

[John Kavanaugh]

David,

I have to admit that there was a time in my life that I would have admired your ability to troll.  The world has changed, it is time to move on and find another hobby.  The single most insulting thing that you do is cloak your hate in the friendship of Tom MacWood.  Please take down his quote from your profile as he deserves so much better.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I have to admit that there was a time in my life that I would have admired your ability to troll.  The world has changed, it is time to move on and find another hobby.  The single most insulting thing that you do is cloak your hate in the friendship of Tom MacWood.  Please take down his quote from your profile as he deserves so much better.

Piss off Creep.

[Brad Isaacs]

Doesn't the subject of a walkable golf course really only come into play if the course was designed to be walkable? Golf courses are designed for many reasons, some of them include golf.

[Chris Johnston]

Kavanaugh,

Quit putting words in my mouth. I didn't say a word about charging or not charging for carts, nor did I say walkers are cheap, although I am sure some of them are.

Anything that makes walking harder, less convenient, or relatively more expensive, makes walking less likely.  Anything that makes riding easier, more convenient, or relatively less expensive makes riding more likely.  
________________________________________

Chris Johnston,

I wasn't talking specifically about Dismal River, but about broader architectural issues.  That is what I do.  I discuss golf architecture, including the broader issues that may or may not be applicable to your club.  I wouldn't expect you to understand that, because you are obviously here to market your course, and any discussion of golf course architecture seems to be of a secondary concern, at best.  

In that regard, I hope you won't be offended, but I barely skimmed your post.  I am not interesting in yet another hard sell infomercial about for your club, and I don't think this is an appropriate venue for such things.  

I am not interested in discussing it with you further, but if you really don't understand how placing golfers in carts increases the chances that they will ride, then take it up with Tom Doak.  He understands it.  Or at least he use to.

David,

I didn't bring Dismal River (Red), or it designer, into this thread.  Actually, you did.

If discussing how carts are used at a facility is somehow "marketing", you serve only to smother dialog.

Sorry you didn't take a moment to read my response.  It simply explained why, at times, carts are perfectly appropriate.  

Probably better to be a "Flat Earther"...probably easier than listening and considering views that might differ from you own.

CJ

Rather than make silly generalizations, and make backhanded assertions about a course and place you have never seen, you might consider broadening your horizons.  It's a big world.

[Joe Sponcia]

Sometimes the joy of having a great golf course on a great location that you love and offers all sorts of other activities, requires the compromise of golf carts, for most people.

We are finalizing the first 9 holes of a Greg Norman course on a 1040 hectare / 2570 acre mountain site, where Norman was given full freedom to locate the best routing and holes anywhere on the property. Due to the dramatic landscape and elevation difference (the 5th green is at 3150 feet above sea level and the 11th tee is at  3800 feet above sea level), and to avoid severe uphill holes, the routing needed 2 long hikes/drives up severe slopes from green to tee. A 270 yard-long 130 vertical feet climb to 6 tees (walkable for a fit person only) and a 660 yard-long 315 vertical climb from 9 green to 10 tee.

For somebody that wants to walk the course, the club will have a shuttle from 9 green, through the club house and onto 10 tees while you enjoy the views of the Patagonian Andes and the 18th hole that drops 275 feet from tee to green. From tee to green, only 2 par 5s have significant uphills, but certainly walkable.

Is it ideal? It is not. But I am hoping the course has a ton of elements that appeal widely to folks on this site, including the very wide fescue fairways, mutiple strategies within the corridors, the dry fast conditions on green surrounds that allow for imaginative play and 360 degrees of unique views that make each hole different.

Mr. Clutterbuck,

It seems that is Mr. Normans modus operandi:  gigantic, unwalkable courses.  On tourist sites, I'm guessing that works fine if the clientele  can pony up $125-200 per round and you can attract 35k + rounds...but what we are discussing is precisely why the business of golf is in the shape its in.  Few between 35-50 years old want to drop $500 per month + initiation + another $1500-2k in carts per year.  What I miss most about my last club is the ability to play 5 holes in the evening and walk to the parking lot or clubhouse.  With modern courses...#5 is more than likely the furthest away from either. 

It sounds like your customer will be of the retail variety so this has no bearing on if he spreads the holes over 200 acres and has a gas station at the top of 9 green to re-fil carts, but it turns my stomach that these type of places are still being built to sell homes and then left to struggle (again, probably not the case with your place).  Mr. Norman built a club in my backyard that I wouldn't walk if you paid me $50.  The design is sound, but with a cart and 4 sub-five handicaps, it is really hard to play in under 4 hours. 

[MClutterbuck]

Joe,

I understand your concerns. I believe those who visit will find a very different reality. The course is 7,100 yards off the tips. At our altitude, I would not describe it as gigantic. It is wide though, very wide in some cases, allowing for multiple strategies within each fairway. It is so wide in fact, I believe we will be able to set it up with no out of bounds stakes except for 1 single hole.

While the course covers 222 acres, only 100 are irrigated. The rest are native areas. Carries to the fairway are not long. A high single digit/ low double digit handicap player can make the carries. Irrigation is 100% by gravity. There are no pumps at all. The course will play dry and firm, and we will water only as needed by fescues that can sustain the dry summers. The dry climates will mean little or no disease so we will be light on the chemicals.

Further, it is not a commercial course, and we will not want high traffic. On the contrary, we hope for moderate traffic through out the season. At least in our part of the world, I believe courses will not make a profit. To the extent we allow limited outside play, the green fees will be moderate and probably even free for visitors for some time.

We do not sell and will not sell memberships. No initiation fees. Of course we need to finance the construction of the course, so we do sell homesites. We made sure houses have a large offset from the golf corridor, and we only put houses on the high side of each hole, thus preserving the better views for the golf course. House footprints are limited to 10% of the homesite.

If you own a homesite, you can play. And your monthly dues/HOA fees maintain the golf course as well as all the rest of the common infrastructure. Our current monthly dues are $110 or so. We expect them to go up $220 or so when the golf course is finalized. Some people elect not to build a home, but are perfectly happy to pay their dues and golf, or play polo, or ride, or hit the 1500 acre nature preserve to trek our mountain bike (no motorized vehicles allowed). I expect electrical carts to go for less than $20.

In Patagonia, your 5 holes in the evening could start at 8pm, no cost to play for homesite owners. There are plenty of 5 hole combinations you could walk to and from. You will not find a super large club house or fancy infrastructure. A small bar with simple but good food run by a local couple and a small locker room will do. No food and wine consultants needed. We avoid the dozens of employees or management companies. No Directors of Golf and other overhead which makes golf in the US so expensive. This is a down to earth place that will maintain costs to a reasonable level.

Greg Norman did a wonderful job of listening to what we wanted. Not a future PGA venue. We asked Greg Norman to give us a course that a 17 handicapper would want to play every day on his 30 day vacation, and not loose a ball, while making it strategically interesting to the 2 handicapper. I believe he has delivered on the front 9.

[MClutterbuck]

"Carries to the fairway are not long. A high single digit/ low double digit handicap player can make the carries." I meant can make the carries from the pro tees. Of course he has several other tees to play from.

[DMoriarty]

Chris Johnston,

Get over yourself.  I was discussing broad issues, and using Sand Hills as an example.  I have no interest in discussing Dismal River or anything else with you.  

[Sam Morrow]

Sure is a cheery bunch around here these days.

[John Kavanaugh]

When we start weighing the cost of a cart against the price of polo ponies we have gone insane.  Wanna make friends join a course, wanna make enimies build one.

[Chris Johnston]

Chris Johnston,

Get over yourself.  I was discussing broad issues, and using Sand Hills as an example.  I have no interest in discussing Dismal River or anything else with you.  

Hmmm...yet, you brought Dismal River Red into the thread.  You then asserted that my participation here is to "market"...and I thought the thread was about walkability    You have stated no interest in considering, discussing, or reading what another member of this board shares relative to the thread?  Yep, if you ride in a cart to a course, you must obviously ride when you get there...sorry, but that assertion is silly out here.  By your same thinking, it makes me glad we don't use buses to get people to the course! 

I really wish I lived in your black and white world, David.  Like most here, the world is full of colors.  Different places do things the best way they can...to make the game enjoyable for the folks they serve...we call them members and guests.  In fact, faithfully serving people is the business we are in...walkers...riders...men...women...guys who want to bring their dog...young players....players getting up there in age...Fathers (and mothers) who bring sons and daughters....good players...serious players...and serious players who bring with them not so good players.  These are pretty universal in the real world of golf. 

Thankfully, we get a only a few idiots or bullies from time-to-time and, even then, do our best to be sure they have a good experience.  You might understand it better if you saw it in practice, but I suppose it's easier to assert silly untruths and attack those with a different view which is  actually based in reality.  If I may ask...how many times have you played Sand Hills?  Have you played there enough to use it as an example?  Have you even walked it? 

I'd love to see the hard and fast rules of architecture to which you seem to adhere, so feel free to post them.  I acknowledge that we all like what we like, and want to play the way we do.  The only things I've have seen is that every course has several things in common...a set number of holes, on each of which there is a beginning and an end.  I've never played two holes the same, and love to see the variety in architecture.   It's a big world, a great game, and among the many gifts of the game are in studying (if you wish), practicing, learning, playing, and playing with people you enjoy.  I've yet to see perfection in architecture, but confess I'm drawn most to that which I like.

Fact is, there is no single template for a course, no set rules for how you must play any hole from beginning to end...variety abounds.  We are lucky for that.  I feel for you, for you always seem far harder than is necessary on this great "discussion" site. 

[SL_Solow]

I hate it when a thread deteriorates.  I am not a moderator but perhaps we can try to inject a little perspective.  First, David's point that putting someone in a cart increases the chance that the player will use a cart is logically irrefutable.  If someone never gets in a cart, they won't end up taking one.  How far that argument takes one in the final analysis is open to discussion.  Many clubs with fine caddy programs shuttle players to and from the practice tee via carts and walking remains prevalent, but the point is well taken.  Nonetheless, special properties create special circumstances.  Moving to the more important point, ad hominem attacks are not only impolite, they don't advance the discussion and tend to cheapen the good arguments advanced by the attacker.  Thus neither side should resort to calling the other a troll, questioning their motives (unless that is part of the argument) or denying their respect or relationship with others on the Board.  It would be nice if we all liked and respected each other but even if we don't, we owe it to the others to keep the personal stuff off line.  Finally, this is a discussion board open to every member's opinions.  If you don't want to engage with someone, that is your business but your failure to engage cedes the field to the other side.  That is the nature of a discussion board, the arguments ultimately carry the day.  You can choose not to engage, but it really doesn't add anything to say so other than to increase the level of acrimony.  As we used to say in taverns, "take it outside".

As to the substance, I staked out my position in an earlier post.  I strongly favor walking both for myself and for the game.  I think walking tends to make the architecture more interesting.  But those who wish to ride are welcome to do so in my world and some sites almost dictate riding.  I might not choose to build there but that would be my preference and I don't make those decisions.  I also will ride when required.

[Josh Bills]

I prefer to walk, though often ride with clients.  In my perspective the ride to the first tee does not make the course un-walkable.  The example in my own golfing experience comes from NGLA.  I arrived late for a tee time and instead of not playing the caddie master had our caddies drive our group out to the 12th hole and start from there and play back to that point and drive our carts back in.  The course is certainly walkable, though had we not be given that opportunity to drive out to the 12th hole we likely would not have finished due to other groups on the course.  For me that day the course was walkable no matter what, but the ride out to the 12th tee certainly did not make me want to continue to ride around the course instead of walking.  For my home course here in Columbus, the  pot league will often start with a shotgun and groups drive their carts out to the hole they start on and then drive them in when done.  Those who want to walk, walk, those who don't, do not.  An un-walkable course to me should be focused on the actual course whether too hilly, too extreme weather or bad routing, not the drive to get there.  The course that comes to my mind for pretty much un-walkable is Dinosaur Mountain at Gold Canyon Golf Resort.   Great course, but un-walkable in my opinion. 

[Garland Bayley]

I agree with Shel.
David stated a fairly general rule.
Chris stated a possible exception.
Enough already.

[Joe Sponcia]

Joe,

I understand your concerns. I believe those who visit will find a very different reality. The course is 7,100 yards off the tips. At our altitude, I would not describe it as gigantic. It is wide though, very wide in some cases, allowing for multiple strategies within each fairway. It is so wide in fact, I believe we will be able to set it up with no out of bounds stakes except for 1 single hole.

While the course covers 222 acres, only 100 are irrigated. The rest are native areas. Carries to the fairway are not long. A high single digit/ low double digit handicap player can make the carries. Irrigation is 100% by gravity. There are no pumps at all. The course will play dry and firm, and we will water only as needed by fescues that can sustain the dry summers. The dry climates will mean little or no disease so we will be light on the chemicals.

Further, it is not a commercial course, and we will not want high traffic. On the contrary, we hope for moderate traffic through out the season. At least in our part of the world, I believe courses will not make a profit. To the extent we allow limited outside play, the green fees will be moderate and probably even free for visitors for some time.

We do not sell and will not sell memberships. No initiation fees. Of course we need to finance the construction of the course, so we do sell homesites. We made sure houses have a large offset from the golf corridor, and we only put houses on the high side of each hole, thus preserving the better views for the golf course. House footprints are limited to 10% of the homesite.

If you own a homesite, you can play. And your monthly dues/HOA fees maintain the golf course as well as all the rest of the common infrastructure. Our current monthly dues are $110 or so. We expect them to go up $220 or so when the golf course is finalized. Some people elect not to build a home, but are perfectly happy to pay their dues and golf, or play polo, or ride, or hit the 1500 acre nature preserve to trek our mountain bike (no motorized vehicles allowed). I expect electrical carts to go for less than $20.

In Patagonia, your 5 holes in the evening could start at 8pm, no cost to play for homesite owners. There are plenty of 5 hole combinations you could walk to and from. You will not find a super large club house or fancy infrastructure. A small bar with simple but good food run by a local couple and a small locker room will do. No food and wine consultants needed. We avoid the dozens of employees or management companies. No Directors of Golf and other overhead which makes golf in the US so expensive. This is a down to earth place that will maintain costs to a reasonable level.

Greg Norman did a wonderful job of listening to what we wanted. Not a future PGA venue. We asked Greg Norman to give us a course that a 17 handicapper would want to play every day on his 30 day vacation, and not loose a ball, while making it strategically interesting to the 2 handicapper. I believe he has delivered on the front 9.

Mr. Clutterbuck,

I wanted to apologize for my tone yesterday and for aiming my personal ax at you.  

I enjoy playing TN National in Loudon, TN...but wish it would have been built with the target audience more in mind.  It is a housing community...and with that, I thought would have been a more walkable layout.  Mr. Norman designed what many call the 'weakest' layout of the 4 onsite at Barefoot resort in North Myrtle...but having played it last year for the first time, I absolutely loved it.  The Reserve on Pawleys Island is the most walkable Norman design I have played.  Minimalist in look and feel.  

So many courses in so many towns across America have been built in the last twenty years to sell real estate...and I get it.  I just hate when they siphon members away from otherwise healthy clubs and then struggle to survive themselves.  We could have an entire topic on all-you-can-eat cart plans that in my estimation, would solve the cost issue, but not the time or walking one that is created when courses get stretched.  I understand a compressed 120 acre site with tee boxes a short walk from green sites isn't an ideal situation for selling homesites...but wonder if given the choice, the golden age architects we love would have been ok building basically cart-only courses knowing what we know today?  The game of golf is so much about flow to me...and that is what I find missing when I ride 400 yards from green to next tee or when I am so isolated from each hole, I find my mind drifting.

Again...please accept my sincere apology.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()