[Lou_Duran]

The "Un-walkable Courses" thread and the underlying assumption by many that walking is an integral part of golf got me thinking about why this is.  No doubt walking is a tradition with an origin in a time when the primary form of mobility was on foot, the clock was not as pressing, and resources were scarce.

Golf has never been considered to be a physically demanding sport.  In fact, there has been discussion here whether it is a sport at all or just a game involving little physicality.  After all, the objective is getting a ball at rest from a starting point into a hole in the least number of strokes relative to the competition.  For the most part, the logistics are not dictated (many local and regional golf organizations allow carts in competitions).

Today we use motorized conveniences to make life easier.  We brush our teeth with automatic brushes.  We drive to the corner store for a gallon of milk.  Hunters seldom go on foot over longer distances, relying on ATVs and/or horses to get them in the proximity of their prey.  Is it conceivable that if golf was "invented" today, the cart or ATV would be an integral part of the game and we would be less critical of courses that have 75-100 yard gaps between greens and tees?  If golf is as hard as many of us believe and if growth of the game is important, would it be a good thing to be better disposed toward motorized carts or, at least, tolerant of those who prefer to play the game riding?
   

[Tom_Doak]

Lou:

The PGA Tour and the USGA spent a fortune in legal fees and cast themselves as villains in the Casey Martin case, arguing that golf was a walking game and that using a cart comprised an unfair competitive advantage.

I never could understand why they didn't just offer him a waiver under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but the assumption at the time was that it was one of those "slippery slope" arguments, where they were afraid Fred Couples would want a cart for his back and somebody else would want one for a blister, and everyone would wind up in carts.

Personally, I don't give a damn about competitive advantage -- I've always played better in the rhythm of walking -- and I don't care if you use a cart or not.  But I hate courses with long green-to-tee transitions because the experience is broken in the process.  I find the game much more pleasant when it flows easily from one hole to the next, and over the years I've steadily emphasized that more and more in my designs.

[Joe Sponcia]

Lou,

I guess...but as we spoke about in the last thread, if you are in a remote area and have a big name attached I suppose it can work?  Myrtle Beach for instance still has about 90 some odd public courses and all of them are cart required.  Few of them close, many struggle, but they are chugging along because they all do it.

We have three courses in my area, all built within the last 10 years that struggle mightily...in my opinion because they are 'cart required'.  They all have some fantastic holes - no doubt.  The last one built (Cupp) was designed in the middle of what was supposed to be retirement community.  I wouldn't walk it if you paid me.  And worst of all...they are selling $26 tee times w/cart on golfnow.  All of those are examples where the mark was missed...homesites with a course stretched forever and 55+ year olds as the customer base?  No one wants to play 5 days a week with $20 carts tacked on each time.

[DMoriarty]

Lou,

Do you really think that golf is not "tolerant of those who prefer to play the game riding?"   Aside from a few clubs and resorts that require walking, it looks to me like the game is extremely tolerant of "those who prefer to play the game riding." Over the past three decades, how many courses have been built which allow riding?  My guess is almost all of them. Over the past three decades, how many courses have been built which require riding by rule or in practice?  My guess is a significant number.  How does that compare to the number of courses built which require walking?   My guess is that there are very few of these.

Also, you seem to be assuming that the goal ought to be to try and grow the game. Surely the equipment manufacturers, developers, and architects would agree with you, but I, for one, am not all concerned with growing the game.   And I have my doubts about the sustainability or desirability of the game that caters to comfort and convenience over substance and tradition.  

[John McCarthy]

Walkers are rare everywhere.  People think golf is a game to drink beer and tell lies. 

In the world of golf we are minorities. 

The thing is, I love drinking beer.  Cheap beer, craft beer, import and domestic.  But it tastes so much better after you have walked a bit and hopefully put one over on your buddy by making a putt on 18.  Over have on put over on you.

[Sean_A]

Personally, I don't give a damn about competitive advantage -- I've always played better in the rhythm of walking -- and I don't care if you use a cart or not.  But I hate courses with long green-to-tee transitions because the experience is broken in the process.  I find the game much more pleasant when it flows easily from one hole to the next, and over the years I've steadily emphasized that more and more in my designs.

...AND, bloody cart paths interfering with the game physically and/or visually    If there were no cart paths and stupidly longs walks I wouldn't give carts a second thought.

Although, I think if golf were invented in the US today, it would not be a walking game.

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't think carts would be an issue, golf might never get off the ground if it was conceived today. The amount of land and resources needed to build a course would put the brakes on it, and even a rudimentary course like those of the early 20th century would cost an arm and a leg to build.
But if it did somehow take hold I would guess that the courses would be shorter, the holes would be more connected to one another, and  the majority would consist of nine holes. And, like disc golf, people would walk.     
 

[William_G]

no

if golf were conceived today it would not be golf, with no evolutionary roots it would be something else of course

it would be an error or accident if it was created today as the game is a reflection of a hunt, where vision, weather, terrain and your senses all impact the outcome

today, there are very few real "hunts" or hunters, it is mostly killing and killers no doubt

[Bill_McBride]

I don't think carts would be an issue, golf might never get off the ground if it was conceived today. The amount of land and resources needed to build a course would put the brakes on it, and even a rudimentary course like those of the early 20th century would cost an arm and a leg to build.
But if it did somehow take hold I would guess that the courses would be shorter, the holes would be more connected to one another, and  the majority would consist of nine holes. And, like disc golf, people would walk.     
 

Not to mention environmental regulation, water shortages, and, at least out west, the California Coastal Commission. 

[DMoriarty]

I don't think carts would be an issue, golf might never get off the ground if it was conceived today. The amount of land and resources needed to build a course would put the brakes on it, and even a rudimentary course like those of the early 20th century would cost an arm and a leg to build.
But if it did somehow take hold I would guess that the courses would be shorter, the holes would be more connected to one another, and  the majority would consist of nine holes. And, like disc golf, people would walk.      

Not to mention environmental regulation, water shortages, and, at least out west, the California Coastal Commission.  

Also, if the game was just starting out, the equipment specifications would probably be very different.  I doubt anyone concerned with creating a sustainable, interesting game would be dumb enough to intentionally conceive of equipment where the long hitters could drive the ball 350 yards and the short hitters half that.  That would take up way too much land, and make creating the courses a nightmare.

[John Kavanaugh]

We all play now where we want, when we want and how we want. How are we going to be different in this make believe world? To say anything different implies a lack a freedom in how we practice our hobbies.

[Mike Sweeney]

Today we use motorized conveniences to make life easier.  We drive to the corner store for a gallon of milk.  Hunters seldom go on foot over longer distances, relying on ATVs and/or horses to get them in the proximity of their prey. 
   

Lou,

I have never played a round of golf with you in a cart. I think we have played 3 or 4 together. If I drive to the corner to get milk, it takes 20 minutes and there is no parking, so I have to park in the garage that i just got the car from and the garage is father from the Korean grocery than my apartment

The old Mayor of NYC (Bloomberg) will throw you in jail for carrying a gun, and the new Mayor of NYC (DeBlasio) is trying to get rid of the horses.

Lots of options out there, come visit!

[Pat Burke]

Game would be played in less holes on smaller pieces of property.
Holes would likely be a little larger.
All to fit the limited focus/patience of today

[Joe Hancock]

...it would likely start slow due to a botched rollout.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,

An interesting thread, and it boggles the mind to think what golf might be today.  Probably more like foot golf, or more realistically, a Top Golf driving range, where you hit the ball, and get electronic feed back as to where it went, and then hit again based on what the computer told you was your current situation.  Maybe all while wearing some kind of gamer glasses. Nature in all forms would be reduced.  Maybe it would be an indoors game!

The funny thing, is, I have always taken golf's basic premise as very enduring and flexible and that is what makes it so great.  To have survived in basic form for over 500 years, while adding technological advances means it was a pretty damn good idea.  The satisfaction of striking a ball with a stick is something that sits deep within the six year old boy in us all.

[Lou_Duran]

Not the way I envisioned this going, but that's fine.

This thread was not intended for the "normal" person who plays golf.  He votes overwhelmingly in favor of carts and beer coolers; compact routings to him are a potential liability, if he takes notice at all.

So, to answer David M's question, it is not golf or that golfer that is intolerant of riders.  I am speaking of those DG participants who, in my view, place too much weight on the part that walking plays in the game, and are very critical of modern golf courses which tend to have some separation between greens and tees.

David is right about riding being encouraged at the expense of walking by the type of courses being built, club policies, and societal norms and preferences.  But so is John K in noting that we all have choices and opportunities.  In my book, freedom is a good thing.  

I share most of Tom Doak's views on how he likes to play his golf.  I am more tolerant of modern design because I find that the cost of breaking up the flow or rhythm of the round vis-à-vis longer transitions is often more than offset by having fewer indifferent holes.  If the trade-off is a connector hole vs. a tougher, but manageable hike or longer ride to get to better land, I go with the latter nearly every time.  I also understand that the regulations which must be followed today, particularly in heavily populated areas, have a lot to do with the longer separations.

Unlike David, I do believe that growing the game is important, not just for commercial interests, but more significantly, for the great positive impact golf has on those who it grasps.   I just don't know how essential the walking aspect is to preserving the game's "substance" and traditions.  I do know that without carts, the game will be greatly reduced; not a good thing in my view.

I don't have the imagination to develop a plausible scenario of golf one hundred years after first being invented in 2014.  I like what Jeff Brauer writes: "I have always taken golf's basic premise as very enduring and flexible and that is what makes it so great.  To have survived in basic form for over 500 years, while adding technological advances means it was a pretty damn good idea.  The satisfaction of striking a ball with a stick is something that sits deep within the six year old boy in us all."   I am a big believer in traditions and institutions; the Burkean philosophy of gradual change, incorporating what works, discarding what doesn't.

Just like Tom Doak, I enjoy my golf the most when I walk.  And I agree with John M, nothing tastes better than a cold beer after a good match on foot (specially on Ben's porch, or around the pit at Dismal River, or at Pete Lavallee's patio and kitchen table).  But I rode yesterday on a wonderful modern course with my son and couple friends, getting extremely lucky to beat a good Texas thunderstorm.  A few good shots and a cold beer.  Wouldn't have changed a thing (well, maybe the two missed three footers, but the damned poa annua was really bad).  Golf is the thing.  On foot or with butt on the seat.

[Sam Morrow]

Lou,

I think it would look like frisbee golf, or I believe it's also called FROLF. Looks like something hippies and teens play.

[William_G]

Golf is the thing.  On foot or with butt on the seat.

disagree

Tom Sawyer's Island vs. Space Mountain

[DMoriarty]

I'm not really buying your notion of the tyranny of the walking golfer, Lou. To the contrary, there are but a few lonely, much maligned voices in a golfing wilderness which is becoming more and more overrun by carts, cart paths, and un-walkable golf courses. The walking golfer is closer to endangered species than tyrannical King of the golfing jungle.

So, to answer David M's question, it is not golf or that golfer that is intolerant of riders.  I am speaking of those DG participants who, in my view, place too much weight on the part that walking plays in the game, and are very critical of modern golf courses which tend to have some separation between greens and tees.

So you think that if I complain about the separation between greens and tees, then I am not "tolerant of those who prefer to play the game riding?"  That doesn't really make any sense, does it?  I don't care if you or anyone else rides.  So where is the intolerance to riders? Who is telling riders they cannot ride? Melvyn hasn't been posting for a couple of years now.

David is right about riding being encouraged at the expense of walking by the type of courses being built, club policies, and societal norms and preferences.  But so is John K in noting that we all have choices and opportunities.  In my book, freedom is a good thing.

I'm not sure the "freedom" buzzword has much application here, especially since those of us on the other side are speaking of broad trends, not dictating individual decisions.  But I'll play along nonetheless . . .  

Where is the "freedom" of choice greatest?  At an un-walkable course? Or at a course built for walking where carts are allowed? The former is no choice at all for those who believe walking is essential to golf, while the latter allows each the freedom to play as he/she likes.  Which course is more "intolerant?" The course accommodating both, or the course accommodating riders only?  

Or are you talking about the "freedom" of the developer to build courses that exclude walkers?  No one is trying to shut these guys down. At least I'm not.  How does my advocating for a more traditional golf model infringe on their "freedom" to build any monstrosity they want?  And why does tolerance only go one way for you? Why should walking golfers be "tolerant" of courses that don't even allow them to walk?  

I share most of Tom Doak's views on how he likes to play his golf.  I am more tolerant of modern design because I find that the cost of breaking up the flow or rhythm of the round vis-à-vis longer transitions is often more than offset by having fewer indifferent holes.  If the trade-off is a connector hole vs. a tougher, but manageable hike or longer ride to get to better land, I go with the latter nearly every time.  I also understand that the regulations which must be followed today, particularly in heavily populated areas, have a lot to do with the longer separations.

I think this is very often a false choice used to justify lazy, mediocre routings or to mask other objectives like preserving certain land for housing. The greatest courses in the world have always worked just fine with tees and greens which are generally close to each other.  I've yet to see a cart ball course that improves on the world's best.  So to suggest that a cart ball course is the best way or only way to produce a great course?  I don't buy it.  

Unlike David, I do believe that growing the game is important, not just for commercial interests, but more significantly, for the great positive impact golf has on those who it grasps.   I just don't know how essential the walking aspect is to preserving the game's "substance" and traditions.  I do know that without carts, the game will be greatly reduced; not a good thing in my view.

Let me refer you back to your introductory sentence:  "This thread was not intended for the "normal" person who plays golf.  He votes overwhelmingly in favor of carts and beer coolers . . . ."   Turns out this thread was intended for your "normal" golfer.  Because this is the kind of growth you are bound to get when you grow the game in a golf cart.  Is growing golf with "carts and beer coolers" really preserving the "substance and traditions" of the game?  I'd prefer a smaller game geared toward people who love golf even more than drinking beer in a golf cart.

I am a big believer in traditions and institutions; the Burkean philosophy of gradual change, incorporating what works, discarding what doesn't.

Yet you are okay with discarding the 500 year old model of walking golf architecture?  Because the fad today happens to be drinking beer and riding in golf carts?  Hardly Burkean.
_________________________________________

Before anyone again accuses me of trying to shut out riding golfers, let me say again . . .  
-- I don't care if anyone walks or rides.  
-- While I generally prefer to walk I ride on occasion myself, when it suits me and/or when the company is right.
-- I think carts are great when they allow lifetime golfers to continue to golf into advanced age and/or with physical infirmities.
-- My comments are about golf architecture, not about the choices any particular individual makes as to whether to walk or ride.

Almost any walking course can accommodate riders.  Almost no cart ball courses can accommodate walkers.

[John Kavanaugh]

If someone who is not a douchetroll can translate whatever the hell was just said, please do. Who plays at a hobby how they are told instead of how they choose?  At the very least the free markets should be alive and well during our free time. Wow, I said free twice and douche only once, why do I feel like I need a shower?

[DMoriarty]

If someone who is not a douchetroll can translate whatever the hell was just said, please do. Who plays at a hobby how they are told instead of how they choose?  At the very least the free markets should be alive and well during our free time. Wow, I said free twice and douche only once, why do I feel like I need a shower?

Does anyone really think this is what Ran has in mind for this website?

[John Kavanaugh]

If someone who is not a douchetroll can translate whatever the hell was just said, please do. Who plays at a hobby how they are told instead of how they choose?  At the very least the free markets should be alive and well during our free time. Wow, I said free twice and douche only once, why do I feel like I need a shower?

Does anyone really think this is what Ran has in mind for this website?

I would think that when Ran conceived of this site he never imagined someone like me while ignoring people like you.  You my ex-friend is why God did not put vocal cords in our sphincter.

[Pat Burke]

I really am not sure what is going on here.
I am one that will try to pass by posts by people I don't understand.

The personal attacks in the two threads right now are disgusting, and pretty classless.
Again, I don't know the history, and really do not care to.  I also do not know either of
you, but I started out looking to read about courses near my home, and am looking
at something that I hope Ran deletes.  Give this site, and Ran a break.
Signed,
Pat Burke  Internet moderator

[Sam Morrow]

I really am not sure what is going on here.
I am one that will try to pass by posts by people I don't understand.

The personal attacks in the two threads right now are disgusting, and pretty classless.
Again, I don't know the history, and really do not care to.  I also do not know either of
you, but I started out looking to read about courses near my home, and am looking
at something that I hope Ran deletes.  Give this site, and Ran a break.
Signed,
Pat Burke  Internet moderator

I'm sorry, it's my fault for mentioning FROLF.

[DMoriarty]

Pat,

I appreciate your post.   

If I said anything offensive or disgusting to anyone in either thread that certainly wasn't my intention.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()