News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0

Ben


You disagree that a huge percentage of modern expansive courses are nowhere near the great walk of many, many classic courses?  I won't pull a Mucci on you, but that sounds a very fishy argument to me.


BTW...the only C&C course I know is Dormie...and it falls well short of comparing well to classic design in terms of walking. 


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ben Sims

  • Karma: +1/-0

Ben


You disagree that a huge percentage of modern expansive courses are nowhere near the great walk of many, many classic courses?  I won't pull a Mucci on you, but that sounds a very fishy argument to me.


BTW...the only C&C course I know is Dormie...and it falls well short of comparing well to classic design in terms of walking. 


Ciao


Sean,


Not to be too exacting, but two posts ago you used the term "a few" and now you use "a huge percentage" in your most recent post. Which one is it?


I don't believe it to be a red herring. As I said earlier, I think there are many modern courses just as walkable as many compact classic routing. Further still, I think there are a number of venerable old courses that aren't necessarily the easiest stroll.


Yes I understand your point, More land = worse/longer walk. But again, the decision to keep a course compact vs keeping a course walkable aren't necessarily the same thing.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Ben

Okay, be pedantic.  Lets put it this way....I don't believe for a NY minute that the percentage of good walking modern courses is anything close to that of its classic counterparts....and I think you know this despite your sans green Muccian protestations. 

Sure...I can buy that some modern expansive courses are a good walk, but when there is more land to fill the chances of that happening become less....I think considerably less.  Compact and walkable are very closely related, but no, not the same thing...never claimed they were.  Of course, as I said earlier, the definition of a good walking course has slowly changed to accommodate modern concepts of high tees, pretty views, safety buffering and no tees to the rear of previous greens. These elements alone can completely alter the intimacy of a round...and that is not including the concept of cart allowance....which I suggest for huge percentage of modern courses eliminates any possibility of a good walk.

Ciao
« Last Edit: June 17, 2016, 03:22:09 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Can we actually think of a few modern expansive designs that are as walkable as the good compact courses?  I think this is a bit of a red herring. Using more space will almost inevitably mean more walking unless the archie makes a concentrated effort not to do so.



You are probably right, because those old courses were designed at 6400 yards not 6800, nor 7400 which means 1000 yards of extra walking right there.  That's more than the total green-to-tee distance at the best of the compact courses.


Most of my best courses have two or three bigger walks [100 yards plus] from green to tee, whereas few UK courses have a walk that long.  I do not mind these bigger walks, as long as they are taking advantage of a view [3 to 4 at Pacific Dunes, 4 to 5 at Barnbougle, back to the 16th tee at Cape Kidnappers].  In fact the three I named all add a great deal to the experience of those courses, a real moment of contemplation with nature.  Walking 100 yards across a development street, not so much.


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
I skimmed this again this morning, and agree with the point that the compact course is dead, but no one has mentioned the single most important and pedantic reason.....

Every type of construction is bigger - roads are wider, homes bigger, etc.  There is some reaction to that trend now.  Am just moving into a new planned community, and entry roads are kept narrow to reduce speed, etc.  Housing lots are reduced (no more lawn mowing! yay for me!)

In golf, compactness went away due to extra length, discussed, but also the learned need for bigger safety margins.  I think most are talking walkable and compact, really meaning the next tee right off the previous green.  Some of the green/next tee center point separations on old courses is less than 100 feet.  Originally, at TOC, they were zero feet, but that soon proved impractical.

As a real world number, I recall my first project for KN - parallel greens and tees we strove for 175 feet, and accepted 160 feet.  Later, our, then my standard was 200 feet perhaps influenced by those plastic golf holes use as templates for routing, but really, for safety and fitting cart path in between reasons.  But, I would accept 175 on hook to hook sides.  I recall one at 145 feet between centerlines, typical on many Ross courses, but when laid out in the field, the hair stood up on my neck, a good indicator of when things are too close!

In more recent years, 200 on parallel holes is still good minimum, with 225-250 at LZ points, more preferred.  However, I realized how few shots go over the green, and am more than willing to put a tee as low as 150 foot from the back of the previous green center in many cases, still more than Ross, etc., but, given greens and tees complexes are larger these days too, pretty reasonable and reasonably close.

Cart paths, safety, circulation, maybe even  just a general preference for bigger scale in society  all have driven greens and tees apart a little bit.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Can we actually think of a few modern expansive designs that are as walkable as the good compact courses?  I think this is a bit of a red herring. Using more space will almost inevitably mean more walking unless the archie makes a concentrated effort not to do so.



You are probably right, because those old courses were designed at 6400 yards not 6800, nor 7400 which means 1000 yards of extra walking right there.  That's more than the total green-to-tee distance at the best of the compact courses.


Most of my best courses have two or three bigger walks [100 yards plus] from green to tee, whereas few UK courses have a walk that long.  I do not mind these bigger walks, as long as they are taking advantage of a view [3 to 4 at Pacific Dunes, 4 to 5 at Barnbougle, back to the 16th tee at Cape Kidnappers].  In fact the three I named all add a great deal to the experience of those courses, a real moment of contemplation with nature.  Walking 100 yards across a development street, not so much.


Tom


I reckon your Renaissance does a good job of keeping a course fairly compact for modern usage and using the exterior views to create an air of expansiveness, but it isn't as expansive as many of the top notch new breed of destination courses.  The only awkward spots are getting to #1 (not an exaonsive area of the course at all) and the walk back to #10 which is meant to expand the course and it does, but I don't think it is worthwhile.  Of course, part of expansiveness which often gets ignored is wide fairways and that is one reason why the top notch new breed courses often seem more expansiveness compared to the classic GB&I links. 


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing