[Jim Engh]

Greetings Boys - sorry for my recent lack of communication. Just want to weigh in on a topic from a little while ago.

*DISCLAIMER* - the last time I tried to make a post, it took Commission Gordon with the Bat Light to get things straightened out. I will try to do better, but no promises.   

Thought of the day: "when you choose to be a rebel, you can't be offended when someone has a differing opinion"

I hope to share my views on a few things and then leave it to you veterans to do with them as you wish. These are only MY thoughts and impressions.

My view of the industry can be described as follows..."There are no absolute right answers, only opinions of absolute right answers and if your opinion is not the right answer too often, your out of business".         

Cart Paths-

It seems to me that all of you have a partially correct position as to my opinion regarding cart path design, just not the entire perspective. It is simply a matter of degrees. Do I prefer to look for the best golf holes first? Yes. Woud I make a 2 mile transiition from one hole to the next to incorporate a feature into the course? No. Would I make you walk up a 0ne foot incline to incorporate a wonderful grove of trees into a hole? Yes. Obviously, somewhere in the middle is the correct answer. And each situation has many other factors.

From my perspective, I often times do not get the opportunity to choose whether walking is an option. We are typically given  mountainous and very rolling terrain type sites. On the truly mountainous sites like Sanctuary, Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon, the decision was not whether walking is resonable, but more to the point,  is this project even possible to build on this land. At this point, riding vs walking is a mute point.   The good news is, if it is possible it will be very spectacular. When dealing with moderate land upon which it might be "possible" to create a walking course, I have the following decision; should I create a course that is very much less exciting/fun but is potentially walkable for 50% of the players? Or should I decide that this will be a mostly cart course and create a much more powerful golfing experience and sales engine for thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional,  consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course. Now, if it is a flattish piece of land that I have been given, the factor of walking is a much bigger consideration. For example, at our new project in the snad hills of Nebraska, called Awarii Dunes, I have set a paramount on walking. Cart paths will be green to tee only and consist of a mixture of native sand and small gravel. Tee placements have been located for ease of access from the previous green. I am very pleased to be able to take this position, still I suspect that we will have a significant amount of cart use. Unfortunately, that is the way things are.

Having said all of that, I would like to make one thing very clear. I DO NOT DESIGN THE CART PATHS FIRST AND THEN PUT IN THE GOLF HOLES. Although never actually stated, some of the accusations were coming very close to such silliness. However, once the golf holes are placed and designed with the ultimate of priority, I do infact put a great deal of effort into making the experience from the cart path the best it can be.  As a professional, I must recognize and consider that a majority of players will experience my creation from the seat of a cart. To ignore that reality, would be foolish and unprofessional. It sort of sounds foolish to say that "I am going to do a really poor job on the cart paths because I don't like carts".

Let me put it this way to the business people out there. You have opened this great new Chinese restaurant, here in the US, that is intended to support your family. The food is the best in the state. 70% of your customers prefer to use a fork as opposed to chop sticks. Do you stand your ground and go out of business because forks are not traditional? Or do you give them nice quality forks with a great dining experience and have happy customers? 

An interesting side note: at Lakota Canyon we were faced with a storm runoff of 1200cfs ( thats a lot of water coming very fast). We were faced with having to put $2 million worth of storm pipe under the 5th fairway to accomodate the water. Obviously, as the total construction budget for the course was around $3.5 million that was not going to work. We were very close to pulling the plug on that project. Then we thought it might be possible to put in small pipe for naormal flows and have the rest of the storm water run down the cart path after the detention area filled. That is why there are berms beside the cart paths on holes number 1 and number 5. Cart path actually saved the project. 

BOWLS -

Question: If bowls make every shot so easy, why do my courses still slope out at 135 - 145?

Answer: Because I have intentionally, sckewed the spectrum of how the game is played and where and how the difficulty is presented. Much as it is played in Ireland, your mind must be "turned on", because the shots that are required do not fit into the "American mold" of how the game is played. Certainly, many times these "bowl" shots will kick into the green, possibly right beside the hole. More likely, you will have a putt that requires the depth of thought to that of a chip shot, with several options and breaks. If  your ball does not kick down you are faced with a very difficult and creative down hill chip shot, to a down hill slope,  that can be played several different ways. Maybe your ball hit the green and kicked through into one of those "thinking mans chip shots."    I feel that golf in America has become very similar to itself. And for many years the game has been played in a dictacted spectrum. After many years of trying to determine in my own mind, why I love playing in Ireland, I finally came to the conclusion that it is the fact that my brain is fully "turned on" for the entire time on the course. Endorphins (sp?) are flying through my brain and I am taking in the land and having to figure out how to hit these ridiculous shots that are so much fun. I am never once, able to "coast" through a hole without having to have my brain totally intuned to what is going on around me. I am trying create a different and fun way to play the game here in America. This includes all settings, not just the ones that look like Scotland and Ireland. 

I certainly do not expect all of you to embrace what I do. But I would hope that those that care about the game will view my work void of aggenda.     
                                   
   

[David_Tepper]

Jim E. -

Thanks very much for your thoughtful and informative comments. Comments on this board from people who are actually making a living (for themselves, their families and their employees) designing and building golf courses are invaluable.

Don't let the peanut gallery get you down!

DT

[Jason Topp]

Greetings Boys - sorry for my recent lack of communication. Just want to weigh in on a topic from a little while ago.

 When dealing with moderate land upon which it might be "possible" to create a walking course, I have the following decision; should I create a course that is very much less exciting/fun but is potentially walkable for 50% of the players? Or should I decide that this will be a mostly cart course and create a much more powerful golfing experience and sales engine for thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional,  consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.

Thanks Jim

Thanks for your post.  It is always nice to get a fresh perspecitive based on real experience.

I have never played any of your courses but I am somewhat surprised by the assertion that cart paths between holes "create a much more powerful golf experience."  I question how often that is the case on otherwise walkable terrain.

While I understand that it is a matter of degree, I have always assumed that cart paths between holes were generally for the purpose of accomodating housing rather than for finding the best golf holes.  Often I have taken long cart rides to play a hole down a tunnel of housing.  When I have found powerful golf holes after a long cart ride, it generally has been on severe terrain that would not be walked except by a nut.

Do you have some examples of courses that turned out to be very interesting, but would have been less so had they been designed to accomodate walking.
  

[George Pazin]

I feel that golf in America has become very similar to itself. And for many years the game has been played in a dictacted spectrum.

Deep thoughts worthy of a separate thread.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas, Jim.

[A.G._Crockett]

Greetings Boys - sorry for my recent lack of communication. Just want to weigh in on a topic from a little while ago.

 When dealing with moderate land upon which it might be "possible" to create a walking course, I have the following decision; should I create a course that is very much less exciting/fun but is potentially walkable for 50% of the players? Or should I decide that this will be a mostly cart course and create a much more powerful golfing experience and sales engine for thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional,  consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.

Thanks Jim

Thanks for your post.  It is always nice to get a fresh perspecitive based on real experience.

I have never played any of your courses but I am somewhat surprised by the assertion that cart paths between holes "create a much more powerful golf experience."  I question how often that is the case on otherwise walkable terrain.

While I understand that it is a matter of degree, I have always assumed that cart paths between holes were generally for the purpose of accomodating housing rather than for finding the best golf holes.  Often I have taken long cart rides to play a hole down a tunnel of housing.  When I have found powerful golf holes after a long cart ride, it generally has been on severe terrain that would not be walked except by a nut.

Do you have some examples of courses that turned out to be very interesting, but would have been less so had they been designed to accomodate walking.
  

Not to put words in Mr. Engh's mouth, but as I read it the statements you quote were predicated on the site being mountainous or rolling terrain, and the question was whether to create the best possible course or a "walking" course.  He referenced Sanctuary, Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon as courses that were either to be cart courses or not built at all.  Had those courses been built so that all could walk, they might well be far less interesting than they are.

[Mark Pritchett]

Great post Jim! 

[Kalen Braley]

Greetings Boys - sorry for my recent lack of communication. Just want to weigh in on a topic from a little while ago.

 When dealing with moderate land upon which it might be "possible" to create a walking course, I have the following decision; should I create a course that is very much less exciting/fun but is potentially walkable for 50% of the players? Or should I decide that this will be a mostly cart course and create a much more powerful golfing experience and sales engine for thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional,  consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.

Thanks Jim

Thanks for your post.  It is always nice to get a fresh perspecitive based on real experience.

I have never played any of your courses but I am somewhat surprised by the assertion that cart paths between holes "create a much more powerful golf experience."  I question how often that is the case on otherwise walkable terrain.

While I understand that it is a matter of degree, I have always assumed that cart paths between holes were generally for the purpose of accomodating housing rather than for finding the best golf holes.  Often I have taken long cart rides to play a hole down a tunnel of housing.  When I have found powerful golf holes after a long cart ride, it generally has been on severe terrain that would not be walked except by a nut.

Do you have some examples of courses that turned out to be very interesting, but would have been less so had they been designed to accomodate walking.
  

Not to put words in Mr. Engh's mouth, but as I read it the statements you quote were predicated on the site being mountainous or rolling terrain, and the question was whether to create the best possible course or a "walking" course.  He referenced Sanctuary, Redlands Mesa and Lakota Canyon as courses that were either to be cart courses or not built at all.  Had those courses been built so that all could walk, they might well be far less interesting than they are.

A.G.,

This is also how I interpreted Jims comments as well.  I guess it comes down to personal preference if one prefers to:

1) Walk and play a so-so course that is a tough walk.

Or -

2) Ride and play a good to excellent course that is very difficult to walk.

[JC Jones]

Great stuff Jim.  It is contributions from you and others like you that make this site what it is.

I can't wait to visit True North next summer.

Thanks

Jason

[Richard Choi]

While I think Jim's post is great, I do have one quibble.

I don't think the argument is that you must make a course walkable at all cost, even if it means building an inferior course - which certainly can apply where the land is severe.

However, what we see over and over again is even when you have a relatively flat land, a priority is given to cart and cart paths that hurts the course design and end up with an inferior course.

I really don't think any of us here would argue that a course like Stone Eagle should have not been built or should have been a lesser course by forcing walkability. I think the walkers are lamenting the fact that even when walking is viable, it is tossed aside too easily by today's designers.

[Jay Flemma]

However, what we see over and over again is even when you have a relatively flat land, a priority is given to cart and cart paths that hurts the course design and end up with an inferior course.

I really don't think any of us here would argue that a course like Stone Eagle should have not been built or should have been a lesser course by forcing walkability. I think the walkers are lamenting the fact that even when walking is viable, it is tossed aside too easily by today's designers.

Regarding your first sentence, when has Jim ever done that?  I don't think he has.  I also don't think you were accusing Jim of doing it, but others on the site have come darn close.  Can you give us examples of "flat courses" that are inferior because of carts or cart paths?

Regarding your second sentence, can you - or anyone else - point to a walkable site that Jim pushed aside wakers in building?

[Garland Bayley]

...
Let me put it this way to the business people out there. You have opened this great new Chinese restaurant, here in the US, that is intended to support your family. The food is the best in the state. 70% of your customers prefer to use a fork as opposed to chop sticks. Do you stand your ground and go out of business because forks are not traditional? Or do you give them nice quality forks with a great dining experience and have happy customers? 
...

You need a better example. Using chop stick takes considerable training and practice. Whereas, everyone thinks they can drive a cart.

[Rob Rigg]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your post - it is great to remove the "interpretation" from the previous threads and actually get your opinion from you - especially concerning how you think about building courses depending on the terrain.

For those trying to put words in Jim's mouth about trying to build "walkable" courses on terrain that was barely buildable never mind walkable, please take note.

Jim - While I am a passionate walker, I do appreciate and respect your "realism" in regards to the business of building/designing courses on challenging terrain that is unwalkable and moderate terrain that could be walkable but may lead to an inferior course.

While I think this area - moderate terrain that could be walkable - is where a lot of the walking/cart debate lives, I understand your line of thinking although I may not agree with it depending on the site (not that it matters).

Do you have any examples of courses that were probably a 50/50 proposition between walkers/carters and decided that the advantage of building a cart golf course was not actually worth it (meaning the flexibility in routing would not have improved the design) - so you decided to build the walking friendly course (that obviously golfers could take carts on as well)?

Or do you think that given the chance to build a walking friendly course or a cart golf course (on a site that is clearly not totally ideal for walking), it is always easier or better to go the cart route (ie - if the developer was to leave the decision entirely up to you)?

Finally, if a walking golfer who tries to avoid cart only courses was interested in getting a feel for the Jim Engh school of design, which of your courses would you recommend? ie) which of your courses blend many of your favorite design traits or styles so a golfer can get the full buffet experience at one or two venues (whether walkable or not)?

Best of luck on your project in Nebraska - it must be nice to work with less severe terrain from time to time and I am very excited that it will be a very friendly layout for walkers.

[Jay Flemma]

...
Let me put it this way to the business people out there. You have opened this great new Chinese restaurant, here in the US, that is intended to support your family. The food is the best in the state. 70% of your customers prefer to use a fork as opposed to chop sticks. Do you stand your ground and go out of business because forks are not traditional? Or do you give them nice quality forks with a great dining experience and have happy customers?  
...

You need a better example. Using chop stick takes considerable training and practice. Whereas, everyone thinks they can drive a cart.

Considerable training and practice?! To use chop sticks?!  Any idiot with an opposable thumb can learn to use chopsticks in two sittings max.

[A.G._Crockett]

While I think Jim's post is great, I do have one quibble.

I don't think the argument is that you must make a course walkable at all cost, even if it means building an inferior course - which certainly can apply where the land is severe.

However, what we see over and over again is even when you have a relatively flat land, a priority is given to cart and cart paths that hurts the course design and end up with an inferior course.

I really don't think any of us here would argue that a course like Stone Eagle should have not been built or should have been a lesser course by forcing walkability. I think the walkers are lamenting the fact that even when walking is viable, it is tossed aside too easily by today's designers.

Richard,
Isn't this two separate issues?  Again, the original post has sites that are NOT relatively flat as the basic premise.

We've all seen courses on relatively flat sites that are difficult, if not impossible, to walk simply because housing drives the development.  That really isn't a GCA matter per se, though, is it? When those of us that like to walk are "tossed aside too easily" it tends to be by developers, not designers.

I can think of a few courses where there is little or no development, and yet the course was designed in a way that makes walking difficult.  Tobacco Road, unfortunately, leaps to mind; I love the place, there isn't any housing, and it is pretty flat, but hardly walking friendly.  But courses like that are the exception; the vast majority of the time the long green-to-tee stretches that we hate so much are about housing, not holes.

[Rob Rigg]

Jay,

I think Rich was speaking generally, not about Engh courses specifically.

Flat land that would have been just fine for walking is turned into cart golf all the time.

Where the game loses out the most is when courses are designed exclusively for cart golf instead of at least giving the golfer a chance to make a decision (I realize this does work both ways, but let's be honest it is pretty much a one way street).

When Doak speaks about constructing Stone Eagle - he readily points out that a lot of the course is very walkable - I think Mr Ferlicca can corroborate this - thus a severe site was turned into a golf course that requires a cart but is actually quite walkable for much of the round (if one decided to do so which is a very small minority).

Also, when RCCC is discussed, it would appear that many architects would have taken the site and made it into a cart golf course but Doak did not, and from all the feedback that has been presented on the site it looks like an incredible place.

I think this is where the "medium terrain" site presents an interesting debate - Can an architect design a great course for BOTH the walker and the cart taker? And is it worth doing so if the percentage of walkers will be 25% or less ? (I certainly hope so in the future)

At least give the golfer a choice.

[Jay Flemma]

I know he wasn't, ROb, but I am speaking to those who seek to demonize Jim and spread the false rumor that he throws walkers under the bus...and stop that false rumor that he said "he designs for the 90% in carts" when he never said that or meant that at all.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Let me put it this way to the business people out there. You have opened this great new Chinese restaurant, here in the US, that is intended to support your family. The food is the best in the state. 70% of your customers prefer to use a fork as opposed to chop sticks. Do you stand your ground and go out of business because forks are not traditional? Or do you give them nice quality forks with a great dining experience and have happy customers?  
...

You need a better example. Using chop stick takes considerable training and practice. Whereas, everyone thinks they can drive a cart.

Considerable training and practice?! To use chop sticks?!  Any idiot with an opposable thumb can learn to use chopsticks in two sittings max.

Any idiot that does not know much about the challenges of eating all types of food from the cultures that use chopsticks would make such a statement. I did not read Jim meaning to refer to chop suey joint.

[Richard Choi]

Jay, I was certainly not talking about Jim's courses as I have not played any of Jim's design (I REALLY want to, I almost did earlier this year at Fossil Trace, but no tee time was available )

As Rob has said, I am talking generally, and I can certainly come up with many examples within 30 miles of where I live.

[Garland Bayley]

However, what we see over and over again is even when you have a relatively flat land, a priority is given to cart and cart paths that hurts the course design and end up with an inferior course.

I really don't think any of us here would argue that a course like Stone Eagle should have not been built or should have been a lesser course by forcing walkability. I think the walkers are lamenting the fact that even when walking is viable, it is tossed aside too easily by today's designers.

Regarding your first sentence, when has Jim ever done that?  I don't think he has.  I also don't think you were accusing Jim of doing it, but others on the site have come darn close.  Can you give us examples of "flat courses" that are inferior because of carts or cart paths?

Regarding your second sentence, can you - or anyone else - point to a walkable site that Jim pushed aside wakers in building?

Sorry Jay, but clearly he has.

[Jay Flemma]

However, what we see over and over again is even when you have a relatively flat land, a priority is given to cart and cart paths that hurts the course design and end up with an inferior course.

I really don't think any of us here would argue that a course like Stone Eagle should have not been built or should have been a lesser course by forcing walkability. I think the walkers are lamenting the fact that even when walking is viable, it is tossed aside too easily by today's designers.

Regarding your first sentence, when has Jim ever done that?  I don't think he has.  I also don't think you were accusing Jim of doing it, but others on the site have come darn close.  Can you give us examples of "flat courses" that are inferior because of carts or cart paths?

Regarding your second sentence, can you - or anyone else - point to a walkable site that Jim pushed aside wakers in building?

Sorry Jay, but clearly he has.

I have walked Pradera every time I have played it with no problem whatsoever.  The notion that Pradera is unwalkable is overrated!

[Garland Bayley]

...

I have walked Pradera every time I have played it with no problem whatsoever.  The notion that Pradera is unwalkable is overrated!

Curious post, since neither Pradera, nor unwalkability were being discussed.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - thanks. I know you focussed on two specific areas, but your post reminded me of something that I've been thinking about quite a bit lately, i.e. that any present-day architect who is worth his/her salt is essentially re-configuring and/or transmuting the principles of good golf design orginally manifested in the great golf courses of England, Ireland and Scotland -- much like, for example, Pete Dye envisioned a way through which classic/fundamental playing angles and risk-reward equations and unforgiving shot-testing could be reproduced -- but re-fashioned -- for the modern, big-money, television game of professional golf in the creation of TPC Sawgrass.  And If THAT is what a golf course architect is trying to do in a new design, I think the only fair-minded critique is in terms of whether or not the goal was accomplished.  Subjective and aesthetic tastes and judgments and preferences certainly have their place, but not I don't think in the context of deciding whether an architect has done his/her job properly and skillfully.

Peter

[Rob Rigg]

Cart Paths-

When dealing with moderate land upon which it might be "possible" to create a walking course, I have the following decision; should I create a course that is very much less exciting/fun but is potentially walkable for 50% of the players? Or should I decide that this will be a mostly cart course and create a much more powerful golfing experience and sales engine for thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional,  consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.

Jay - Read Jim's post. I cannot understand why you are determined to say that Jim does not design cart golf courses if 1) that is clearly what the terrain calls for or 2) the terrain could lead to a walking course or cart course, but the cart course would be more compelling in his opinion and he thinks 90% of people will ride anyways.

He clearly explains his line of thinking and I certainly appreciate his candor.

I don't recall anyone ever stating that if given the chance to build a great walking course on a flat to undulating piece of land, Jim would give walkers the finger and design a cart golf course because he thinks everyone rides anyways?

[Jim Nugent]

Very cool post, Jim.

A few unrelated questions.  Weren't you working on one of the Irish courses?  Is that project still on, and if so, how is it coming?

Also, any new courses you can tell us about? 

[Jay Flemma]

Cart Paths-

When dealing with moderate land upon which it might be "possible" to create a walking course, I have the following decision; should I create a course that is very much less exciting/fun but is potentially walkable for 50% of the players? Or should I decide that this will be a mostly cart course and create a much more powerful golfing experience and sales engine for thr project? When making that decision, you must, as a professional,  consider that if the course is walkable for 50% of the players, it is likely that you will have 90% of the golfers using a cart. In my mind that is an easy decsion. Do the better course.

Jay - Read Jim's post. I cannot understand why you are determined to say that Jim does not design cart golf courses if 1) that is clearly what the terrain calls for or 2) the terrain could lead to a walking course or cart course, but the cart course would be more compelling in his opinion and he thinks 90% of people will ride anyways.

He clearly explains his line of thinking and I certainly appreciate his candor.

I don't recall anyone ever stating that if given the chance to build a great walking course on a flat to undulating piece of land, Jim would give walkers the finger and design a cart golf course because he thinks everyone rides anyways?

Because you and other s have this ridiculaous notion of "cart golf" as anything that isn't eminantly walkable by a 103 y/o in his Depends undergarments drinking Ensure.  You think there is some bright line between a cart course and a walking course even though on your own website you have a striated color coded system that I dont think you use enough in your own ratings.  Redlands a green?  You have to be kidding redlands was a tough walk!  It's easily an Orange, maybe a red. 

Saying "it's a cart course" has this overly-haughty, summariliy dismissive air about it that can lead people to a wrong conclusion, and having a "cart course or not" attitude is unfair to the designer.  Jim is here:  why don't you ask him if he designs cart golf courses or not?  And then because he has one or two tough designs, people lbrand him and dismiss his new work out of hand.  Maybe Black rock or Lakota are, tough walks but red Hawk?  Fossil?  Blackstone?  Creek club?  No chance, they are much easier.  There are plenty of older members at Creek Club and they have no problem walking, I saw them myself, and they all like the course a great deal.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()