[Matthew Lloyd]

Before I bury the lede, the purpose of this post is to ask how each of you would define a walkable golf course.
 
Like most golfers (or all golfers in the case of GCA), I’ve been thrilled to see the boom of “walking only” destination golf. But unlike many, I’ve been surprised (albeit pleasantly surprised) to see how successful these resorts have become.
 
My surprise stems from the fact that in many corners of the U.S. it’s still rare to see a majority of golfers walking, and far too many courses still seem to mandate carts when they’re not necessary. The result, as we all know, is that too many golfers are conditioned to rely on carts as a crutch, excuse the pun.
 
As somebody who organizes a decent number of golf trips, it is not easy to mix and match people when seemingly nobody can agree on what constitutes a walkable golf course. And it’s a particular challenge when each golfer’s enjoyment often depends on them being able to enjoy the round “on their own terms.”
 
(Admittedly the definition of walkable on this site will be broader than it would be among a group of “average retail golfers”)
 
The issues that come up with my groups are no doubt predictable:
 
*** Distance between greens and tee boxes
*** Overall terrain
*** Distance from clubhouse to #1 tee or #18 green back to clubhouse
*** Weather (i.e. heat and humidity)
*** Volume of play on the course in question
*** Age/fitness level of participants
*** the pace of play battle between riders and walkers (whether the actual issue is imagined or not the surface level conflict remains!)
 
As a baseline of comparison, here are some oft-mentioned GCA courses that I would 100% walk but appear to be borderline based on people I’ve talked to (listed in no particular order):
 
Rock Creek
Sand Hills
Dismal Red 
Kingsley
Tobacco Road
 
There are no doubt many more courses which fall into the “walkable but a workout” category. Spyglass Hill was one for me. But I’d be curious what percentage of golfers would consider the four courses above walkable. Rock Creek in particular is a course that I wanted to stay on for 15 hours I enjoyed the sights so much – why rush through that round?
 
Ultimately it feels like the definition of walkable is highly personalized to each golfer – unless you’re much luckier than I am in managing playing partners!  (I hope that you are)
 
Because I’m more convinced than ever that defining a walkable course is highly personalized, below is my profile as a golfer:
 
1.      I’m about to be 47 years old
2.      My primary interest in visiting a course is to see interesting designs/architecture (no surprise I ended up on this site)
3.      My secondary interest is outdoor recreation (i.e. I will walk wherever it’s allowed)
4.      My next priority when golfing is social activity – I enjoy meeting new people on golf courses; and would rather catch up with friends playing golf as opposed to other activities
5.      My own game/round is not important to me as long as I’m able to enjoy points #2, #3 and #4.
6.      But I’m a decent golfer who can score in the low to mid 80s on average – so I can get around most courses and hit enough good shots to always have fun.
7.      I play about 20-25 rounds per year; my strategy is to play fewer but more memorable rounds. 
8.      I live in Los Angeles and don’t own a car. This means I walk about 10-12 miles per day every single day. So walking 7-8 miles on a beautiful golf course free of concrete and people is incredibly relaxing no matter what’s going on.
 
Final note before I eagerly await anyone’s opinions on walkability…
 
I’m thrilled for people to ride in carts if that’s what they want to do.  I just want people to have fun while they play golf.  For me that means walking and not rushing along.  Others may feel differently.  I think my bigger issue is when you get a group of 12 “die hard walkers” who can’t even agree on what is walkable.
 
To paraphrase Mark Twain, I would have written a shorter post if I had the time…
 
 

[Mark_Fine]

Completely subjective and can be defined differently by anyone.  I know golfers who think The Plantation Course at Kapalua is walkable and carry their own bag.  The pros walk it but they do get some cart assists on certain holes (so is that walkable?).  Everything in your post plays a role in defining what is “walkable”.  Same as defining what is “great”.  Good luck 

[Matthew Lloyd]

Hahahaha I agree.  A consensus definitely won't be reached.  Glad to know I'm not crazy for failing to define it.

[Mike Worth]

I’m 60 years old. Retired military and in pretty good shape.


I prefer to walk to the point where I will look for any reason to not take a riding cart.  I consider it part of my conditioning program (walking and carrying). 


Of all the conditions you list, heat is the one that gets me the most.  While I was a member at Hidden Creek NJ (a relatively flat course with only 52 feet of elevation change) I routinely rode in a cart in July and August due to heat.


Of the courses you list, I walked Sand Hills in September on a fairly windy day and had no problem.  To be fair, our group started off with the intention of walking 9, and then seeing how we felt. But to a man, we all felt fine and just kept going.


I played Rock Creek Cattle Company around the same time and rode, but that’s because my host was riding. I think I could’ve walked it OK but there is a lot of elevation change. As I think back on it, had I walked it would’ve diminished the experience, and I may not have focused on the architecture in the courses as much


I also played Dismal Red on the same trip and rode. I played alone which makes the course unwalkable because the first tee and 18th green are a bit apart and the 1st tee is 3/4 mile from the clubhouse.  To be clear, the course itself is walkable you just would need to figure out the logistics of getting to the first tee from the clubhouse and then back to the first tee from the 18th Green to retrieve the cart you used to get to the first tee.

[Sean_A]

Walkable for me is a high priority. But being walkable doesn’t mean it’s enjoyable or a good walk. To use a course on your list, I don’t care for the walk at Tobacco Road and for me this is one of the main points in thinking it’s not a great course. The flow of the course is disrupted too often for too long by walks between holes, but TR is walkable.

Heat and humidity would be my second unwalkable factor. I have had a few unpleasant shocks in Spain and South Carolina. Very walkable courses in British weather, very harsh and most unpleasant in local weather. In Spain the locals walked without issue; not so much the case in SC.

I rarely come across courses which are too steep/hilly to walk, but I did last year in West Virginia. I reckon with these courses the transitions are often an issue as well. On a cooler day with better transitions I think walking would be doable, but not pleasant on such terrain for me.

Ciao

[Matt Schoolfield]

Gleneagles (San Francisco) -- a course literally on the side of a mountain, literally only about 4 members take carts, and they are elderly.

Lions Muny (Austin) -- Mostly flat, but people regularly get heat stroke walking in the summer heat (100+/40+) and I'd say it's literally dangerous to walk in the summer.

Cart courses - where the 1st hole is a 5 minute+ cart ride away from the clubhouse I'd say are generally unwalkable.

We can argue all day over the meaning of "walkable," but this is where philosophy of language can help us. Contrary to Platonic forms of old, contemporary philosophy and linguistics basically asserts that language is just complicated pointing at things. So it would be better just to add a "walkable for..." when asking about it. Gleneagles SF is walkable for spry older folks who live in a hilly city where people walk, but probably not for people who live in a car-dependent cities where hills are tiring. Lions is really only walkable in the summer for folks who are very attuned to the heat and their own bodies, and who know how to avoid heatstroke. 

The only courses that I would say are truly unwalkable, full stop, are the ones that require you to travel unreasonable distances between holes, which is still vague, but is based on time and not ability.

[Stewart Abramson]

For me, walkability is based on two factors: (i) distance between holes and (ii) physical difficulty of the walk. I prefer to walk, but having retired to Florida that's not allowed and not practical at the majority of courses I now play much of the year. Some of the residential courses here have walks between holes that are longer than the holes themselves. Even though flat, the time to play a round on courses with such a routing would be horrible without riding a buggy.


Physical difficulty of a walk can be caused by high heat & humidty and/or lots of steep hills. If I can walk a course without it adversely affecting my shots or physically exhausting me then it's walkable (for me). I'm an old guy and walked 8 rounds in seven days earlier this Fall in England. The only round that was borderline unwalkable was the very hilly Royal Ashdown Forest on a day that was 34*C and 90% humidity.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Really dislike using carts, but fortunately it's not often an issue. Where possible I want to carry my own bag.

My attempt at a definition...

If a keen walker wouldn't consider carrying for 36, then it meets the definition of "unwalkable" for the majority of golfers. (problem now is to define keen walker ).

[Brian Finn]

*** Distance between greens and tee boxes
*** Overall terrain
*** Distance from clubhouse to #1 tee or #18 green back to clubhouse
*** Weather (i.e. heat and humidity)
*** Volume of play on the course in question
*** Age/fitness level of participants
*** the pace of play battle between riders and walkers (whether the actual issue is imagined or not the surface level conflict remains!)
 
Rock Creek
Sand Hills
Dismal Red 
Kingsley
Tobacco Road

Among the reasons you've cited, heat & humidity is the number one reason I will occasionally opt to ride.  I prefer to walk, but would certainly rather ride than not play.  My age & fitness level work against me, but I am able to walk 36 per day for a week straight when traveling to the UK, so it's really the heat/humidity mostly.  Volume of play on a course really doesn't factor in for me, but I suppose I could see it mattering for a large group traveling together. 
In terms of the specific courses you mention...

Sand Hills - highly walkable, once you get to Ben's porch.  Green to tee transitions are reasonable and terrain is not bad.  It's a great walk, which I wouldn't hesitate to take on.  I've simply followed my host's preference in every round there, which is about 50/50.

Kingsley - highly walkable.  Green to tee transitions reasonable.  A bit of terrain to traverse, but nothing too onerous.  Clubhouse proximity not an issue.  On my one visit, I played 5+ rounds, all walking, including >36 in a day.

Dismal River Red - walkable, if logistics to/from clubhouse are worked out.  Terrain not too severe, transitions good.  Rode most rounds during 5th Major, but found the holes I did walk pretty pleasant. 

RCCC - tougher than average walk, but still doable.  Some tough terrain main issue.  I followed my host's lead, which was to ride, and loved every minute on property, but would have walked at least one round, otherwise.  Probably a walk in the AM, ride in the PM as ideal day.

Tobacco Road - walkable, but not as pleasant a walk as others cited.  Probably easier overall than RCCC, but long (and some odd) transitions in a couple of spots make it less practical or desirable. 

[Tom_Doak]

Walkability is maybe the only factor in designing courses that I have put more weight on as I've grown older.  When I was 26 I saw High Pointe as easily walkable; at 62, I understand all of the old guys who complained about it the first time around.  [But, it's hilly property like Crystal Downs or Kingsley, so there's only so much to be done.]

Walkability seems to be not so important to course rankings, because people only play the course once or twice, and they're not going to ding it if the golf holes are wowsers.  The only hard and fast rule is that there is no course in the world top 100 that is truly unwalkable . . . that is like a black flag for most panelists [including me].  But they'll bend over backwards to declare a course walkable if they like it.  Ellerston used to make the GOLF ranking, and I've been told it has several ridiculous green-to-tee walks, because the client Kerry Packer told Greg Norman he and his guests would always take a cart.  And of course, if you were his guest, you would, too, and not complain about it.

But, for a place where you are going to be a member, and play for the rest of your life, walkability is extremely important, for those who want to keep walking into their old age.  If there are big green-to-tee transitions, it's hard to keep up with others in your foursome when they want to use a cart, and there will be pressure on you to ride with them.  At St Andrews or North Berwick it would be the opposite problem . . . the cart would have to be parked further away from the green than the next tee is!

I remember when I was in Switzerland 40 years ago they told me that the trails were all rated on the basis of how long it would take a Swiss grandmother to walk them.  Likewise, the only people you should listen to about walkability in golf are 50-70 year olds, and preferably not Americans, many of whom would struggle to walk up a ten foot hill.

[Rob Marshall]

I’m a 61 year old American and I can walk up a 10’ hill so I must be in better shape than I thought.

[V. Kmetz]

The only hard and fast rule is that there is no course in the world top 100 that is truly unwalkable . . . that is like a black flag for most panelists [including me].  But they'll bend over backwards to declare a course walkable if they like it. 

I know there's a big difference between UNwalkable and a hard walk..and a hard walk that could be said to be walkable... I'm just saying:


Shinnecock, Yale, National, Sleepy Hollow and Fishers are pretty tough walks and it doesn't hurt their stature one bit.


And I know its oft-repeated, but the WF courses should get some plus points for the high degree of walkability among Top 20 courses

[Tom_Doak]

Shinnecock, Yale, National, Sleepy Hollow and Fishers are pretty tough walks and it doesn't hurt their stature one bit.

I enjoyed reading that the donor of the property for the Yale GC thought it should be physically demanding of the collegiate players, as well as demanding from a golf perspective.


To your note about Winged Foot, I would reply that no golf course is easier to walk than The Old Course at St. Andrews -- the green to tee distances are bare minimum, and there's not more than fifteen feet of elevation change.  Muirfield and North Berwick are very gentle walks, too.

[Jim Hoak]

I would ask for a little understanding--even maybe a little pity--on those of us who absolutely need a cart.
I spent my golf life hating golf carts--and thinking that walking was the only true form of the game. As someone involved with numerous Green Committees, I know what damage carts can do to turf. 
But life has a way of moving on--until it doesn't.
Now at almost 80--and after several back procedures (probably caused by a life of golf)--using a golf cart is my only option for playing. I have learned that little in golf--or life--is an absolute.  If golf is to be the "Sport of a Lifetime, " as we're fond of saying, we need to show both understanding and flexibility.
So, for me, no course is really walkable--despite my stubborn inclination to still believe that real golf should involve walking if possible.
But as I told my wife, I wouldn't trade a life of golf for a good back!

[V. Kmetz]

I enjoyed reading that the donor of the property for the Yale GC thought it should be physically demanding of the collegiate players, as well as demanding from a golf perspective.

LoL... sorta sounds like Judge Smails... "...sent younger boys than you to the gas chamber Danny; didn't want to do it... felt I owed it to them..."


shows the Ivy hoy-polloy were always full of shit; what a putz!


Yes and to your note on the other three... agreed, it's a plus perfection for them, even with they are not considered not sui generis, and honestly compared with other great courses.  In America, among American and parkland courses, WF should get that same bump... yeah, thinking on it too, though Ive visited but never played, that PV and ANGC are pretty hunky walks.  In the gentler category (that I've seen) Pinehurst and Seminole rank well, though Seminole had some large swells and sandy bluffs.

[JLahrman]

I'm almost 49, I don't play that much golf but try to walk whenever I do play.


More because of a bad back than because of age, I got a push cart last year. I would prefer to carry but the push cart does increase the walkability of courses for me.


But the heat really does make a difference. On a hot day it can't be coincidental that my game starts to fall apart around the 14th hole when I'm walking.

[John Kirk]

I've said this many times.  I think Pasatiempo GC in Santa Cruz offers the maximum desirable challenge for walking a golf course.  Except for the transition between nines, it has short green-to-tee walks but is quite hilly, with several short and very steep transitions from green to tee in a few cases.  The walks from #3 green to #4 tee and #11 green to #12 tee are short and tough, and the final 100 yards of the 9th hole and then up to the 10th tee is really hard.


As people have mentioned, weather is a big factor, and Pasatiempo has that cool Pacific coast weather.  The body adapts to the demands placed upon it, and Pasatiempo would get an ambitious old golfer into shape.

Many of the better, early California courses are pretty hilly.  I would guess that, as a general rule, more people 80-100 years ago were in better shape for walking than today.  Being able to walk well was more important then.  I think the bar should be set pretty high for what constitutes a walkable course.

Finally, walkability is kind of a core competency for a golf course.  If it's not reasonably walkable for at least a couple months a year during moderate weather, the course should not be considered for best-of lists.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I would ask for a little understanding--even maybe a little pity--on those of us who absolutely need a cart.
I spent my golf life hating golf carts--and thinking that walking was the only true form of the game. As someone involved with numerous Green Committees, I know what damage carts can do to turf. 
But life has a way of moving on--until it doesn't.
Now at almost 80--and after several back procedures (probably caused by a life of golf)--using a golf cart is my only option for playing. I have learned that little in golf--or life--is an absolute.  If golf is to be the "Sport of a Lifetime, " as we're fond of saying, we need to show both understanding and flexibility.
So, for me, no course is really walkable--despite my stubborn inclination to still believe that real golf should involve walking if possible.
But as I told my wife, I wouldn't trade a life of golf for a good back!

I hope no one is suggesting we remove carts from those who need them. We can talk about course aesthetics till the cows come home, but the health and well-being of our fellow players should be a top priority.

[Kalen Braley]

I would ask for a little understanding--even maybe a little pity--on those of us who absolutely need a cart.
I spent my golf life hating golf carts--and thinking that walking was the only true form of the game. As someone involved with numerous Green Committees, I know what damage carts can do to turf. 
But life has a way of moving on--until it doesn't.
Now at almost 80--and after several back procedures (probably caused by a life of golf)--using a golf cart is my only option for playing. I have learned that little in golf--or life--is an absolute.  If golf is to be the "Sport of a Lifetime, " as we're fond of saying, we need to show both understanding and flexibility.
So, for me, no course is really walkable--despite my stubborn inclination to still believe that real golf should involve walking if possible.
But as I told my wife, I wouldn't trade a life of golf for a good back!

Jim,

Well said, and this is one of my biggest beefs with walking only courses such as at Bandon where you need to be permanently disabled via the ADA definition to get a cart.  There is a large chunk of the over 50 crowd that are nowhere near disabled but still suffer from various ailments and chronic conditions where walking 18 holes and spending 4-5 hours on your feet is an agonizing slog, if not impossible.

Hell I can even provide a written attestation from my neurologist with detailed notes from my MRI scans to verify such, but nope not good enough.

[Matt Schoolfield]

There is a large chunk of the over 50 crowd that are nowhere near disabled but still suffer from various ailments and chronic conditions where walking 18 holes and spending 4-5 hours on your feet is an agonizing slog, if not impossible.

I want to be delicate here, but a recent roommate of mine has a qualifying disability. I know he and a lot of other folks are loath to claim (or even admit) disability. My roommate was unwilling to apply for a placard until he found out some of the more obscure benefits of having one (similar to the Bandon policies, but for CA State Parks). I kept reminding him that there was absolutely no shame in it, and that all the effort Americans put forward to protect folks with disability (and it's actually a lot) is wasted if those folks refuse to accept it.

My point here is that if someone needs a cane or walking stick to walk for long distances, there is a good chance they have a qualifying disability, even if it's just age related. If someone's inability for walk for long periods is limiting their life (e.g. not being able to play Bandon because of the walking), they should really have a serious discussion with their doctor about seeing if they qualify. It might not be a qualifying condition, sure, but it's absolutely worth discussing sooner rather than later.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

In my case, and a few friends of mine, we're in the latter category.  No canes or assistance otherwise needed, its purely a function of time on our feet due to various issues.  We can easily spend 4-5 hours on a golf course with a few minutes of standing followed by a period of sitting in the cart where the pain/discomfort never accumulates.

But we all have no issues doing shorter spurts of normal activity like yardwork, gym, going to the store, etc. It seems like getting an ADA exception just to ride a walking course is beyond unnecessary and trivial.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()