[Ben Sims]

In the current thread on Landmand, Rob Collins said something interesting…

“When Ron Whitten visited the site, he made a comment that really stuck with me & was something I had not previously considered. What he said was that Landmand offers people the opportunity to walk around and interact with a piece of land that you wouldn’t otherwise take a leisurely stroll on…it simply wasn’t a piece of land you’d go walk around on because it was so severe. By virtue of the quantity of earth that was moved, it is walkable and allows one to experience that landscape in a way that was previously impossible.”

When I first read that, I was reading quickly about a new course that interested me and remember thinking that it was a fair statement. The more I think about it, it’s a load of fiddlesticks. Bear with me. Ron isn’t being misleading or full of it when they he says this. But it is absolutely the sort of thing someone that’s spent a career in golf would say about a new project. It almost seemed like it came from the Ben Hogan book of golf course superlatives.

I don’t mean this as a shot at Ron Whitten or Rob Collins or Landmand. But let’s have a talk about this whole idea of  “the walk” and “interacting with the land.”

I have many miles of walking in my life. Most of the time it’s for transportation, getting from A to B. When I walk for pleasure, I can’t remember often choosing the sort of land one would route a top 100 in the US golf course over as my preference. That isn’t to say that places like the sandy dunes and hillocks of Long Island or the dead flat pastoral fields on Lake Michigan north of Chicago aren’t pretty. Pretty has do thing to do with it. It’s just that they don’t seem like a great place for a hike.

To his credit, Tom Doak does seem to care about the hiking aspect of golf architecture, routing courses in such a way as to increase the chance that one will be wowed by discovery. We’ve spoken before about intermixing grandeur and intimacy on the golf course, much the same as I would like to happen on a backpacking trip, mountain bike ride, or backcountry elk hunting trip.  Not coincidentally, I don’t think I’ve ever seen Tom on an existing or in-construction golf course without hiking boots on.

All this to say, I think the Good Walk Spoiled is a fallacy. A golf course must flow and be routed with the walk in mind, sure. Severity isn’t desirable. But the mark of good golf course architecture is how the the player and the ball interact with the land much more so than how the “hiker” interacts with the land.

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe it should be A Good Ride Spoiled since almost 3/4 of all rounds are played in carts 

[Peter Pallotta]

Very good, Ben, and needed to be said -- the conventional wisdom/cliche was getting quite cloying. If we asked Tom D, "What's more important to you, an excellent walk across a dramatic landscape or as many great golf holes as humanly possible?" what do we think he'd answer? 

[Ben Sims]

Very good, Ben, and needed to be said -- the conventional wisdom/cliche was getting quite cloying. If we asked Tom D, "What's more important to you, an excellent walk across a dramatic landscape or as many great golf holes as humanly possible?" what do we think he'd answer?

Thanks Peter. To be clear, I don’t consider the two things (the walk and good golf holes) mutually exclusive. That said, I’m not sure if I agree with Whitten’s premise that moving enough earth so golfers won’t need crampons is a good thing. I look forward to driving out and seeing it one day perhaps.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben, my guess is that Ron (and many of the rest of us, especially media types) over-emphasize the importance of 'the walk' as a reaction to the cart-ball-routing-and-18-signature-holes approach/ethos that dominated gca when Ron first started out, and before the revival of golden age sensibilities. It's become a sign that we are 'in the know' to talk about the 'journey' as much as we do great golf holes -- and, while you're probably right to say that the two aren't mutually exclusive, I imagine that -- in practice -- it's a difficult balancing act, and that if forced to choose most architects would preference the latter, ie great golf holes.
 

[Ronald Montesano]

Those who walk are more likely to be pissed off by riders, than riders by walkers.


I don't believe that great golf holes and a dramatic walk are exclusionary to the other.


"We" are so diverse, that what I and you and they and she and he and it want(s) does/do not always line up, if ever. Ergo, what I need in a walk differs from what a New Hampshirian might want, or a Coloradan, or a Pescatarian.


I walked 18 holes with KLynch on Thursday. We pushed carts and flew around the golf course in under four hours, with golfers in front and behind. The course had movement, but was an overall-flat piece of land (formerly broken land/informal dumping ground.) The walk made everything after the round feel like a reward.

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe many of the greatest ones are (and that is why they are great e.g. Sand Hills), but most golf courses are not built on land that “God meant to be a golf course.”  Gil Hanse once told me if he had his choice he would prefer rolling farmland that allowed him to do as he pleased with the land.  And of course he would be thinking about “the walk” but he would have had many other things on his mind as well.

[John Kavanaugh]

Those who walk are more likely to be pissed off by riders, than riders by walkers.

We know. I’ll never understand the anger so many of my fellow golfers express over the joy had by others.

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe someone should start a new thread asking the question, Have golf carts been one of the best or had one of worst impacts on golf and golf course architecture in the last 100 years?  There is a bit of an analogy to toe ropes and now fully enclosed ski lifts to take people up and down the slopes.  In the old days if you wanted to have a go you had to put your skis on your back and hike up.  It was part of the experience     And there were only ski slopes where that was possible.

[Ben Sims]

I don’t think the four-letter c-word is something I want to talk about here. But the thread will go where it goes I suppose


Rather, I’d hoped this would be a discussion on the severity of terrain, the pacing of routing, and how our own perception of a course is affected by those things. I just told a close friend that I’d generally never prefer to hike/walk in a place where you gain little vantage points only to “give back” that elevation almost immediately, over and over again, for four hours. Seems very repetitive and severe for a “walk”. But for a golf course? Seem like I’ve just described dozens of great courses.

[Sean_A]

I don’t think the four-letter c-word is something I want to talk about here. But the thread will go where it goes I suppose


Rather, I’d hoped this would be a discussion on the severity of terrain, the pacing of routing, and how our own perception of a course is affected by those things. I just told a close friend that I’d generally never prefer to hike/walk in a place where you gain little vantage points only to “give back” that elevation almost immediately, over and over again, for four hours. Seems very repetitive and severe for a “walk”. But for a golf course? Seem like I’ve just described dozens of great courses.

This is exactly how I feel about courses if the walk is stiff enough. Fortunately, I haven't played many courses close or beyond the pale. I am more annoyed with walk backs or awkward walk to tees because most of the time the walk isn't worth the trouble. I played a course about a month that not only had a walk back, but the tee also made the hole blind...stupid. Bottom line for me, I'll usually give up a great hole for the better walk. I figure two things. First, if the great hole wasn't built I probably don't know it could have existed anyway. Second, if the archie can't make a good hole from the easier walk choice then why the hell is the archie being paid. Greatness is over-rated.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

As someone who has done a LOT of hiking in the dunes and hillocks of Long Island, especially since the beginning of the pandermic, I can very much say that they are GREAT places to hike, and there are far more of them than anyone can imagine on Long Island.
So I guess I disagree with at least one of the premises of the thread.


Having dealt with and ultimately been heavily involved in mitigating a horriffic walk within an existing routing, I'd say I definitely value the quality of the walk, and that it is a delicate balancing act between quality of the holes,discovery and demands of the hike.
One of my observations of the fantastic St. Patrick's Links is the severity/length of some of the green to tee transitions,but I certainly don't pretend to suggest there was a better way of to route the course, or that it would be better without the walks(or better yet the end results of the walks).In St. Patrick's case, given that the site and course are spectacular, it would seem the walks are part of the exploration of the land, and well worth the trouble to get into and around the spectacular terrain.



I also think the walk between holes has a tremendous impact on remembering a routing, and the only holes I ever struggle to remember in sequence are those holes with a long journey or severe  hike(losing the link between the two holes), or worse yet a ride from green to tee.
I guess I'd rather occasionally play over or around poor terrain rather than repeatedly walk a long way for better visibility(especially if it's the same view) or terrain.
I'm definitley suspicious of a course with "18 great holes" and have no problem playing a mediocre part of a hole(blind and/or uphill tee shot) to get to better terrain, rather then repeated wallking or climbing to the perfect spot(with noteable exceptions of course)


I guess it's also one of my critiscisms of "family tees" I'd rather play across a piece of property than walk across it.

[Joe_Tucholski]

I don’t think the four-letter c-word is something I want to talk about here. But the thread will go where it goes I suppose


Rather, I’d hoped this would be a discussion on the severity of terrain, the pacing of routing, and how our own perception of a course is affected by those things. I just told a close friend that I’d generally never prefer to hike/walk in a place where you gain little vantage points only to “give back” that elevation almost immediately, over and over again, for four hours. Seems very repetitive and severe for a “walk”. But for a golf course? Seem like I’ve just described dozens of great courses.

Ben would you want to play a golf course that was straight up hill for 12-14 holes and provided a great view and then turned back down for the final 4-6?  Seems like a terrible golf course but dozens of great hikes.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Unsurprisingly I agree with most of the points Sean and Jeff make above. I put a lot of emphasis on the walk and will sometimes improve the walk at the expense of a slightly better hole set-up.


Case in point: Jim Engh’s initial routing at Carne had a bunch of exciting holes but the walk would have been impossible. The final routing was all about making the walk as easy as possible (it’s still difficult!) and the holes as playable as possible. I also happen to think the holes are just as good or better. But they are very different.


To Jeff’s point on St Patricks, there’s only one aspect of Tom’s routing that I ruled out in 2012/13 when I was doing my own options and that was the walk from 6 green up that dune to 7 tees. All the rest of the walks (bar maybe 17 green to 18 tees) come as part and parcel of the site. Big dunes come with some areas that you are just required to climb out of…. As it happens, By routing that walk from 6 green to 7 tees, Tom opened up a loop of holes that I think is a huge success. So the decision was definitely worth it.

[John Kavanaugh]

Popular architects love to march you up a hill to view their majesty. The worst is that tribute to Fazio at Rustic Canyon. I think it is the 16th. We are on the highest point of the property but HS and Co make you climb to an even higher tee.

[Ben Sims]

I don’t think the four-letter c-word is something I want to talk about here. But the thread will go where it goes I suppose


Rather, I’d hoped this would be a discussion on the severity of terrain, the pacing of routing, and how our own perception of a course is affected by those things. I just told a close friend that I’d generally never prefer to hike/walk in a place where you gain little vantage points only to “give back” that elevation almost immediately, over and over again, for four hours. Seems very repetitive and severe for a “walk”. But for a golf course? Seem like I’ve just described dozens of great courses.

Ben would you want to play a golf course that was straight up hill for 12-14 holes and provided a great view and then turned back down for the final 4-6?  Seems like a terrible golf course but dozens of great hikes.

Heavens no. You’ve made my point. “The Walk” is an often overrated aspect of this whole golf architecture thing. Ask me about “the walk” on the all the great courses I was able to see in my architecture heyday and I’d likely shrug and kind of demure to a generic statement. Ask me about the flow of the holes, the moments of discovery, and the associated themes? I remember that.


Ballyneal is one of my favorite places on earth. Traipsing up and down the sides of dunes in 90 degree heat ain’t my idea of a great walk. But the golf holes…they’re sublime.


Going a bit further on that theme. What few walk backs or climbs to tees that Ballyneal has, I’ve tried a few times to eliminate them and tee off as close to the previous green as possible. I’ve noticed that I don’t appreciably notice a difference at the end of the day about the severity of the walk. But I did certainly notice a difference in quality of the holes.

[Ben Sims]

As someone who has done a LOT of hiking in the dunes and hillocks of Long Island, especially since the beginning of the pandermic, I can very much say that they are GREAT places to hike, and there are far more of them than anyone can imagine on Long Island.
So I guess I disagree with at least one of the premises of the thread.


Having dealt with and ultimately been heavily involved in mitigating a horriffic walk within an existing routing, I'd say I definitely value the quality of the walk, and that it is a delicate balancing act between quality of the holes,discovery and demands of the hike.
One of my observations of the fantastic St. Patrick's Links is the severity/length of some of the green to tee transitions,but I certainly don't pretend to suggest there was a better way of to route the course, or that it would be better without the walks(or better yet the end results of the walks).In St. Patrick's case, given that the site and course are spectacular, it would seem the walks are part of the exploration of the land, and well worth the trouble to get into and around the spectacular terrain.



I also think the walk between holes has a tremendous impact on remembering a routing, and the only holes I ever struggle to remember in sequence are those holes with a long journey or severe  hike(losing the link between the two holes), or worse yet a ride from green to tee.
I guess I'd rather play over or around poor terrain rather than walk a long way for better visibility or terrain.
I'm definitley suspicious of a course with "18 great holes" and have no problem playing a mediocre part of a hole(blind and/or uphill tee shot) to get to better terrain, rather then repeated wallking or climbing to the perfect spot(with noteable exceptions of course)


I guess it's also one of my critiscisms of "family tees" I'd rather play across a piece of property than walk across it.

Jeff,


It’s been almost a decade since you helped our group around The Bridge. I remember lots of things you pointed out that day regarding the severity of the transitions, particularly 16 and 17. Need to get me one of those “Golf” (Gulf) shirts again.


Of course I also remember our impromptu and unplanned rounds at Palmetto, a course that exemplifies many of the ideals we’re talking about here.


All that to say, I think there’s certainly a line that gets crossed when it comes to “the walk” and severity. It’s something that I’m trying to refine here in this thread. Crux of the idea….no one really cares about the walk until they do. I aim to better figure out what that delineation point is. Go Dawgs.

[John Kirk]

Playing the devil's advocate, let's consider Cypress Point, which I have never played.  By all accounts it is a wonderful golf course.  However, isn't the walk around the point, with the beautiful and unique natural setting, a key component which makes it considered a top 5-10 course in the world?

My opinion is a great, natural setting for a course is worth a lot.  Inbetween shots I am looking at the scenery, at least when I'm not blabbering about something.  For me, a natural setting, and one that is largely unspoiled, is very important.  Nature is just more interesting and complicated than civilization.
 

[John Kavanaugh]

Playing the devil's advocate, let's consider Cypress Point, which I have never played.  By all accounts it is a wonderful golf course.  However, isn't the walk around the point, with the beautiful and unique natural setting, a key component which makes it considered a top 5-10 course in the world?

My opinion is a great, natural setting for a course is worth a lot.  Inbetween shots I am looking at the scenery, at least when I'm not blabbering about something.  For me, a natural setting, and one that is largely unspoiled, is very important.  Nature is just more interesting and complicated than civilization.

What about those people who during a beautiful walk use that beauty as an excuse to bash the architecture? You rarely hear about opportunities missed in the heartland.

[John Kirk]

Hi John,

I'm out the door for a few hours, and won't be able to respond until then.  Maybe I'm being self-centered, or overly sensitive about this, but I'm concerned you may be calling me out for being a hypocrite.   I made a post back in 2007 or so saying I didn't like Dismal River (White).  In that case, my primary objection was the course was a very difficult walk, which I felt was unacceptable when you have so much land to choose a routing and design.

Otherwise, I don't quite understand what you're getting at.  Sorry, I gotta go.  Back this afternoon for Monday Night Football.

[John Kavanaugh]

Hi John,

I'm out the door for a few hours, and won't be able to respond until then.  Maybe I'm being self-centered, or overly sensitive about this, but I'm concerned you may be calling me out for being a hypocrite.   I made a post back in 2007 or so saying I didn't like Dismal River (White).  In that case, my primary objection was the course was a very difficult walk, which I felt was unacceptable when you have so much land to choose a routing and design.

Otherwise, I don't quite understand what you're getting at.  Sorry, I gotta go.  Back this afternoon for Monday Night Football.

Not at all. I only remember fun discussions with you.


Of courses I have seen I am thinking more along the lines of Torrey South.

[Jeff Schley]

One aspect that I appreciated was the level and mowed walking paths around Ballybunion. I don't recall a course that put that much emphasis on the walking paths and it made for a much more pleasant walk and enjoyable day golfing. Big difference between there and Whistling Straits as it was in the first years of it's existence. Turning an ankle or worse was common there due to the uneven natural dirt walking path golfers would wear down naturally.


Another nice aspect of the Ballybunion paths is they are wide enough to allow you to walk side by side, to enjoy the company of another playing partner.  Overall a nice enhancement IMO. Not sure of the cost for maintenance, which I'm sure could be a concern.

[Ally Mcintosh]

One aspect that I appreciated was the level and mowed walking paths around Ballybunion. I don't recall a course that put that much emphasis on the walking paths and it made for a much more pleasant walk and enjoyable day golfing. Big difference between there and Whistling Straits as it was in the first years of it's existence. Turning an ankle or worse was common there due to the uneven natural dirt walking path golfers would wear down naturally.


Another nice aspect of the Ballybunion paths is they are wide enough to allow you to walk side by side, to enjoy the company of another playing partner.  Overall a nice enhancement IMO. Not sure of the cost for maintenance, which I'm sure could be a concern.

Rye grass, irrigated, expensive. A bit too clean for my liking.

[Jeff Schley]

One aspect that I appreciated was the level and mowed walking paths around Ballybunion. I don't recall a course that put that much emphasis on the walking paths and it made for a much more pleasant walk and enjoyable day golfing. Big difference between there and Whistling Straits as it was in the first years of it's existence. Turning an ankle or worse was common there due to the uneven natural dirt walking path golfers would wear down naturally.


Another nice aspect of the Ballybunion paths is they are wide enough to allow you to walk side by side, to enjoy the company of another playing partner.  Overall a nice enhancement IMO. Not sure of the cost for maintenance, which I'm sure could be a concern.

Rye grass, irrigated, expensive. A bit too clean for my liking.

Really rye grass, I'm a bit surprised by that, although yes it is very green. Didn't they just rip up all the greens for fescue several years back?  Why do you think they went rye?  Aesthetics only?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Just for the walking paths, Jeff. Harder wearing. Will still be a predominantly fescue mix elsewhere…


I’m saying this without having visited recently. But that would be the norm with almost every other links course that can afford to maintain grass walking paths.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()