....so much fuss over concrete...

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,

Thanks for your reply,

I think you also ask a really good question in just because one can build a course, does that mean they should do it? As for mountain courses, I've been able to play more than my fair share of them living in Utah and having travelled to most of the states out West.  I think mountain courses should be given a good hard look in determining if they should be built because I'm guessing contruction costs and irrigation costs are that much more.  But I don't see this issue being unique to mountain courses, I see it applying to any course.
Some mountain courses are based around a model of housing, and some aren't.  Just like same is true for just about any other genre of golf course.

If a course uses a model that works financially for them, this is almost always the bottom line when asking if it should be there or not.  If one wants to build a flat, easy to walk course, in the middle of nowhere, then the question still must be asked, how will the finances work. Whether it be a private model or housing model, or by using a dirt bare bones construction cost model, however it can be done is really up the owners. In the same vein, if a mountainous, difficult to walk course model works, then I don't see the issue with that....because it fits right in with the big world theory, and I agree with the concept.

[Melvyn Morrow]

DID ANY OF YOU ACTUALLY READ MY POST – I was asking questions trying to learn, replying to Jim’s statement and asking for clarification. Yet, even when I am trying to understand and learn you pour out all your old crap, get a life and grow up.

I am trying to understand why, does the powerful experience come from the panoramic view, or is it the way you Tee off, play the Green or ride up the Mountains. I said I do not know and also said that I based my comments on Jim’s statement.  If the routing needs to be different in the mountains for carts why not down on all the other courses which share Walking/Carts. I said that Jim would have to excuse my ignorance, which clearly you and others are not.

Clint, I have always wanted to visit and play a few games in the USA, to trace my great grandfather and his brothers (two who remained in the States) footsteps in Georgia & Alabama. To visit the house my great grandfather had built in 1875 and where my grandmother was conceived.  Today it’s still there, known as The Hunter House still on 2nd  Street Darien Georgia.





Yet due to the quality of the comments from many across the pond, I fear that that trip will never happen as I see very little in the way of human kindness. However, I would love to meet our Mr Gray & Mr Garland, if not for a game certainly for a truck load of beer with a few Single malts thrown in.

Melvyn
 

[C. Squier]

Yet due to the quality of the comments from many across the pond, I fear that that trip will never happen as I see very little in the way of human kindness.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've read on this website.  Which is saying a lot.  Furthermore, I doubt there are any flights in/out of your own myopic world, so the thought is moot.

The only way to experience mountain golf is to play it. Though I fully doubt your commitment to learning about it here on GCA, no words can describe it fully if you are indeed sincere.

[Garland Bayley]

... Furthermore, I doubt there are any flights in/out of your own myopic world, so the thought is moot.
...

Clint,

Thanks for that bit of human kindness.
 

[PCCraig]

I had contemplated sending my post via IM to Jim as I was interested to learn more and understand, but that’s not generally the way for a blog site.

The problem is that we do not understand, we don’t have time to understand, we don’t even want to try to understand each other, The old saying ‘if you do not know, ask’, is long dead and buried. The policy of shooting first and ask question later is coming to the forefront. What a way to live.

Some questions and opinions make others puke. Beautiful, makes you wonder if we have any future at all on this or any other world.

What a wonderful world, full of the milk of human kindness and consideration

Melvyn

Melvyn, you're 100% right.  So in order to understand, please fly over the US and visit Stone Eagle next July.  If you walk and carry 36, I'd be willing to bet every participant on this website will call golf in the US "cartball".  

Until then, you're blowing in the wind.

I agree 100%. However we all know Melvyn will never come to the United States, because that would mean he would have to put his money where his mouth is.

[Rob Rigg]

Okay - before we spin off on a tangent never to return - here is a request to Mr Engh to please, when he can find the time, answer some of the questions that have been asked on the first page of the thread.

Actually hearing an architects thoughts and opinions from that architect is extremely interesting and appreciated!

I am especially curious about the decision making process on pieces of land that are 50/50, but where a Cart Golf course will produce a superior golfing experience (as far as Jim is concerned), and whether Jim has ever been in a situation where he decided to make a walkable course instead of a "mostly cart course" because the aesthetic, quality and experience advantages of cart golf were not enough to take away the walking option for golfers who would choose to do so.

Also - Jim - Are we out of our minds, in your opinion, to see Golf (walking golf) and Cart Golf as two different games with two different experiences?


Thanks in advance if you have the time to answer any of these questions.

[Sean_A]

I may be all wet, but I think Melvyn is trying to say that despite the good reasons connected with the terrain or housing developments for using carts, this type of golf still undermines some of the core values of the game and architecture itself.  

Melvyn - if I am correct - please outline for me what those core values are.  I too wondered about the statement of Jim's deciding to go whole hog for cart golf when less dramatic possibilities existed that would have been more walker friendly.  Having walked a few nasties in my time, I think I know where Jim is coming from.  He could just about make the course walkable, but many walkers may try it once and come to the conclusion that the course is a terrible walk.  Consequently, Jim's design is left in a no man's land of not really walkable and failing to take full advantage of what is essentially cart golf site.

Ciao

[Ben Sims]

... I've seen them.  Hello McFly??  It didn't take an Ivy League degree to see that massive earthmoving coupled with considerably unnatural appearances would result from making the site more walker friendly.  But like you said, I didn't design, so how could I possibly understand that.

Hello McFly?? Who's talking about massive earthmoving? Did Egan do massive earthmoving at Indian Canyon? Did Doak do massive earthmoving at Stone Eagle? Do you build a great uphill hole by doing massive earthmoving to build the hill?

Your assignment is to read Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course, and then come back and make your argument.

That's the point friend.  You just said that Egan and Doak didn't go crazy moving dirt.  And hence, their severe site is less walkable for that reason.  If they had tried to make the course more walkable... you get it

Bayley, please, give an inch.  It's not a hard argument to give in to.  My case centers around a central theme of this; It is clear that to make a course like Stone Eagle more walkable, that Tom and Eric would've had to do two things.  Change the routing considerably, or move a crap load of dirt.  That's it.  Nothing more or less.  I am not speaking only about uphill holes, or down hill, or forced carries or shelved in greens and tees.  But ALL of the above.  

I think I remember Tom (on tape or on here somewhere) stating that deciding to route SE up and down the mountain was one of the tougher decisions they made regarding the site.  And that shelving in fairways into the side of the mountain just wouldn't have been good enough.  That decision most certainly made the course less walkable, no?  

As for the book.  I've read it twice and I don't know why you think it applies here.  Seems like I might have been picked as your annoyance du jour, a la our departed friend Barney.  So I hope you enjoying this.  

[Steve Wilson]

If it is possible to describe mountain golf with carts as "Cartballing", perhaps it's equally useful to describe the same experience without carts as "mountaineering with golf clubs."

[C. Squier]

... Furthermore, I doubt there are any flights in/out of your own myopic world, so the thought is moot.
...

Clint,

Thanks for that bit of human kindness.
 

Make no mistake, I don't care if Melvyn wishes to visit ME.  But don't for a second believe he wants to visit the US.  That has been made quite clear in the past, long before my post(s). 

[PCCraig]

Instead of wasting too much time with our resident village idiot Melvyn, I would rather get back on topic as the first post by Jim E. was a great one and a perfect example of how a professional questions the amateur peanut gallery and instead of answering, they throw the question back at the professional.

The bottom line is that golf is golf. There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale. In no way is a golfer playing one of Jim's courses in a cart any less of a golfer playing Pac Dunes with a caddie or push cart. While anyone that has played with me knows, I love to walk and play golf...and fast. However if I'm at Stone Eagle in July, or my host is riding, or everyone else in the group is taking a cart (very rare in my usual group), then what's the difference? You're still playing the same golf course, hitting it in the same places, and experiencing essentially the same thing. Golf while riding in a cart is still a hell of a lot better than no golf at all!

We get all worked up with Melvyn not because many of us don't like to walk, but because he is so adament (and insulting towards others) about being a "pure" golfer and that anyone who doesn't play golf exactly like him is disgracing the name of his famous dead great granddaddy Old Tom. While really it doesn't matter at all what Old Tom would do today, or yesterday, or a hundred years ago (esp. when there was no other option than walking). In fact the only reason Melvyn is here is because no one in their right mind would actually listen to his nonsense in the real world...Scotland or elsewhere.

The idea that a course with a riding only policy is any less of a golf course and that we should do everything we can to purposely avoid it is nutso. Of course I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that, but it's not so serious of an issue as many make it nor should it take away from the study of the actual GCA of a course.

[Kalen Braley]

You all need to keep your grubby mitts off Melyvn.  I've already extended an open invitation to come over anytime he likes.

He has a free place to sleep and eat here and I'll even play chaffeur and take him where ever he wants to go.  We'll stay up late discussing why desert mountain golf is the wave of the future and I'll introduce him to some fine American beers, not that sissy UK stuff!!   

[Jay Flemma]

The heck with the milk of human kindness, I need Milk of Magnesia after this thread:)

So much fuss over concrete, indeed!

Are we perhaps getting a little too worked up over all this?

[Rob Rigg]

If it is possible to describe mountain golf with carts as "Cartballing", perhaps it's equally useful to describe the same experience without carts as "mountaineering with golf clubs."

Steve - I think you are right - rarely will Mountain Golf not be Cart Golf and for those who walk it is either "hiking with golf clubs" or "mountaineering with golf clubs" or "some crazy guy with golf clubs."

But "cart golf" is supposed to describe a course where 1) you have to ride a cart or 2) where a course is essentially unwalkable. Thus, the walking golf experience is not available and the cart golfing experience becomes the norm.

"Cart golf" does not only occur in the mountains, "cart golf" exists on anywhere from flat pieces of land to 50/50 walkable land, and that range includes many courses that are not "cart golf" because of RE development.

Again, I think almost everyone understands why mountain golf courses are cart golf courses - otherwise the course would not be there - it is just the decision making process around 50/50 courses or 60/40 courses, etc. where it would be interesting to know what key decisions make an architect take the "choice" to walk or ride out of the golfers hands and make it "ride only" because the experience and commercial success will be much better.

[Garland Bayley]

quote Ben Sims

That's the point friend.  You just said that Egan and Doak didn't go crazy moving dirt.  And hence, their severe site is less walkable for that reason.  If they had tried to make the course more walkable... you get it

I said that? I thought I said an architect would have great difficulty creating a better course by using golf carts. Please explain how I said what you claim. As for Indian Canyon, look at thewalkinggolfer.com. It is rated green.

Bayley, please, give an inch.  It's not a hard argument to give in to.  My case centers around a central theme of this; It is clear that to make a course like Stone Eagle more walkable, that Tom and Eric would've had to do two things.  Change the routing considerably, or move a crap load of dirt.  That's it.  Nothing more or less.  I am not speaking only about uphill holes, or down hill, or forced carries or shelved in greens and tees.  But ALL of the above.  

I think I remember Tom (on tape or on here somewhere) stating that deciding to route SE up and down the mountain was one of the tougher decisions they made regarding the site.  And that shelving in fairways into the side of the mountain just wouldn't have been good enough.  That decision most certainly made the course less walkable, no?  

Perhaps you don't understand walkable. Up hill holes are walkable. Putting green to tee barriers in the way is the primary cause of unwalkability. As I said, I have not played Stone Eagle, but I understand there is a short cut that makes walking quite doable. That is leaving out some green to tee walks, but still playing the up and down holes.


As for the book.  I've read it twice and I don't know why you think it applies here.  Seems like I might have been picked as your annoyance du jour, a la our departed friend Barney.  So I hope you enjoying this.  

The part that applies is the chapter on routing and handling severe sites. But it is probably not a necessary review now that we know you don't understand walkable. And trust me, you are not Barney, you can never be Barney, so don't even think of trying to be Barney.

EDIT: Removed the website quote mechanism, because it makes many colors barely distinguishable from the quoted text. And, changed the color to blue which should show up well here now.

[Ben Sims]

Bayley,

Let's chill a sec. You said they moved less dirt. Then I surmised that on a severe site that sometimes made it less walkable. I never said you said that.  I said that based on you saying they moved less dirt.

And I never said I was Barney. I was actually trying to say that you were being a Barney. Because you had picked me as your person to come annoy. So don't yell at me if you're misunderstanding my  writing. Maybe I haven't been clear enough in my debate. But your last post was vitriolic and not much fun. All I have ever argued is that subduing a site in order to make it less severe takes away from th individual golf holes and requires more earthmoving. That's all

[Mike Nuzzo]

So much fuss over concrete, indeed!
Are we perhaps getting a little too worked up over all this?

No
I think the cart path decision is central to many issues with golf today.
Why would an architect publicly offer to reduce their fee $50k if paths were eliminated?
Jay how much do paths cost?  Carts?  Maintenance of and surrounding areas and the supporting infrastructure of both?
The WSJ wrote an article about push carts this week.

[Garland Bayley]

Ben,

Sorry about the red. It was not meant to be vitriolic, nor was I intending to be vitriolic. The unfortunate fact is that many of the other colors just don't stand out in this new website format, and are hardly distinguishable.

"You said they moved less dirt. Then I surmised that on a severe site that sometimes made it less walkable. I never said you said that." Sorry, by the juxtaposition and lack of change of focus in your first statement, I did not understand that is what you meant.

"All I have ever argued is that subduing a site in order to make it less severe takes away from th individual golf holes and requires more earthmoving." I guess I am not making myself clear. I am saying that it may very well be that the site does not have to be "subdued". All along it seemed clear to me that you immediately assumed mountainous sites had to be subdued. That is what I took issue with by giving examples of courses that did not have the site subdued.

[A.G._Crockett]

Instead of wasting too much time with our resident village idiot Melvyn, I would rather get back on topic as the first post by Jim E. was a great one and a perfect example of how a professional questions the amateur peanut gallery and instead of answering, they throw the question back at the professional.

The bottom line is that golf is golf. There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale. In no way is a golfer playing one of Jim's courses in a cart any less of a golfer playing Pac Dunes with a caddie or push cart. While anyone that has played with me knows, I love to walk and play golf...and fast. However if I'm at Stone Eagle in July, or my host is riding, or everyone else in the group is taking a cart (very rare in my usual group), then what's the difference? You're still playing the same golf course, hitting it in the same places, and experiencing essentially the same thing. Golf while riding in a cart is still a hell of a lot better than no golf at all!

We get all worked up with Melvyn not because many of us don't like to walk, but because he is so adament (and insulting towards others) about being a "pure" golfer and that anyone who doesn't play golf exactly like him is disgracing the name of his famous dead great granddaddy Old Tom. While really it doesn't matter at all what Old Tom would do today, or yesterday, or a hundred years ago (esp. when there was no other option than walking). In fact the only reason Melvyn is here is because no one in their right mind would actually listen to his nonsense in the real world...Scotland or elsewhere.

The idea that a course with a riding only policy is any less of a golf course and that we should do everything we can to purposely avoid it is nutso. Of course I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that, but it's not so serious of an issue as many make it nor should it take away from the study of the actual GCA of a course.

Pat Craig,
Beautifully said.  Jim Engh's post was a simple, clear, and educational offering from a professional to a group of people who are anything but.  If he reads the entirety of this thread, I wouldn't expect him to ever post again; why would a PhD. wish to return to a group of ill-behaved first graders?  He made his thoughts and decision-making process clear, and the professional nit-pickers here on GCA have covered it in manure, as so often is the case in the last couple of years. 

I, too, love to walk when I play golf.  But THE core value of golf for me is that I just love to play the game.  So when I find myself in a carts-only situation and faced with the choice of riding or not playing, it is not a choice at all.  I play the game.  And at the end of the round, when I think back on whatever good shots I might have hit, I NEVER think to myself, "Yes, but I rode..."

Thanks to Jim Engh and the other GCA's out there who find ways to build good and memorable courses on difficult sites for developers who insist on housing and cart paths and all the rest.  How exactly more good courses with wonderful golf holes and vistas can be bad for the game escapes me completely.  The genie is out of the bottle now; carts are here to stay, and are a critical part of the revenue stream of modern golf.  It may be lamentable that every course isn't a links in Scotland, but the game has grown far, far beyond that and will never go back.  To think otherwise is exactly comparable to a life membership in the Flat Earth Society.

Walking is important, to the game and to me.  It is integral to the game's history, it is fantastically healthy, and quite simply the way the game is best played.  BUT it is not THE game, or we wouldn't have clubs and balls and bunkers and all the rest; we would just walk.  There is much, much more to golf than a simple walk, or it wouldn't have such a hold over all of us.  My experience is that trying to give simple answers to complex questions rarely succeeds and often obscures the truth.

So I'll walk when possible, and ride when necessary for whatever reason.  Either way, I'll be playing GOLF and my life will be better for the experience.  And if I'm ever fortunate enough to play one of Jim Engh's courses, I'll enjoy the day no matter how I get from one shot to another. 

[Matt_Ward]

A.G. --

Often we have not agreed on a range of topics -- but your most recent post on "so much fuss over concrete" was very well put together and a position I agree with 100%.

Jim Engh courses won't be for everyone -- that includes more specifically those "stuck in the mud types" who label quality golf design in the most narrowest of lights.

Thanks again for highlighting your thoughts.

matt

[Garland Bayley]

...There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale....
I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that...

You are not making a lot of sense here Pat.
The USGA make a big deal about the difference.
How is it that there is no difference?

[Michael Blake]

...There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale....
I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that...

How is it that there is no difference?

Because executing a golf shot is done the same exact way whether you walk or ride.

[Garland Bayley]

...There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale....
I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that...

How is it that there is no difference?

Because executing a golf shot is done the same exact way whether you walk or ride.

But Michael, you can do that on a driving range.

[PThomas]

...There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale....
I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that...

How is it that there is no difference?

Because executing a golf shot is done the same exact way whether you walk or ride.

fwiw, the Supreme Court agreed with the last thought and Casey Martin

[Garland Bayley]

...There is zero difference between riding in a cart or walking on a general scale....
I prefer to play golf while walking and I would rather play golf courses that let me do that...

How is it that there is no difference?

Because executing a golf shot is done the same exact way whether you walk or ride.

fwiw, the Supreme Court agreed with the last thought and Casey Martin

Is that all that went into the Supreme Court decision? It got to the Supreme Court. There must be an awful lot of people that believe there is certainly more than zero difference.

Discussing the Supreme Court decision goes a bit beyond what is at issue on this thread since it dealt with handicapped access. So I will let this one lie.

[Tags:]

Tags: