News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Ben Sims

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #75 on: September 22, 2009, 04:43:07 PM »
Bayley,

No worries friend. Colors, like emoticons, do a good job on an otherwise emotionless media of illustrating feelngs. I.e., i thought you were ticked.  You're one of the fun guys to debate with. So sorry if I seemed annoyed.

I would love to hear how a severe site can be made more friendly to the hoofers among us without "subduing" or what I'll now call "chopping" the site down. Truly.

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #76 on: September 22, 2009, 04:43:22 PM »
...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?


The only person who isn't making sense in this thread is you. Why you have latched yourself to Melvyn and his pathetic cause is beyond me? Perhaps you are the type that really digs his family tree and gospel.

Good for you.

The problem with your posts on this thread (and many many others within the past year along with your buddies Gray and Melvyn) is that you turned it from a discussion of cart paths and design and made it about walking vs. no walking, "pure" golf vs. "cart ball golf."
H.P.S.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #77 on: September 22, 2009, 05:01:11 PM »
Bayley,

No worries friend. Colors, like emoticons, do a good job on an otherwise emotionless media of illustrating feelngs. I.e., i thought you were ticked.  You're one of the fun guys to debate with. So sorry if I seemed annoyed.

I would love to hear how a severe site can be made more friendly to the hoofers among us without "subduing" or what I'll now call "chopping" the site down. Truly.

I am far from a expert, but I think you have already hit upon it. You mentioned that Tom Doak chose to make play go up and down at Stone Eagle.

After the Grudge Match, the next day I walked and played both Indian Canyon in Spokane and Palouse Ridge in Pullman. As you know the play at Indian Canyon is very much up and down, with short green to tee transfers. Being an older course with a limited number of tees helps instead of having to have the current 5 tees that are in vogue so added tees can add distance and probably climbing. Palouse Ridge was just the opposite. You mostly played across the top of a ridge or followed the valley. Therefore, a walker had to climb the hill to get to the tee, or descend a steep hill to get to the tee. The one instance where you played down the hill was an instance where you were forced to climb a big hill to the tee where you got an opportunity to hit a monster drive down the hill and feel good about yourself. As you know at Indian Canyon you got several opportunities to hit monster drives down hill without having to make anything but a short, level, green to tee transfer.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #78 on: September 22, 2009, 05:11:49 PM »
...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?


The only person who isn't making sense in this thread is you. Why you have latched yourself to Melvyn and his pathetic cause is beyond me? Perhaps you are the type that really digs his family tree and gospel.

Good for you.

The problem with your posts on this thread (and many many others within the past year along with your buddies Gray and Melvyn) is that you turned it from a discussion of cart paths and design and made it about walking vs. no walking, "pure" golf vs. "cart ball golf."


Have I latched on to Melvyn or has Melvyn latched on to me? I think neither.
In 1995 the USGA wrote that riding a cart was not golf, it was cart ball. It was the first I heard of it and I latched on to that. Melvyn latched on to something much older.

I disagree with your characterization of what I have been doing on this thread. I simply have been trying to open people's, like Ben's, to alernatives. To the viewpoint that maybe carts weren't used in earlier times and that we may be over using them now.

Also, please don't accuse Anthony Gray of being a purist. He has even been caught on camera playing with his shirt OFF! But, still TUCKED IN!
;)
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #79 on: September 22, 2009, 05:21:16 PM »
Guys,

What if we steer the debate away from the "if you don't walk then you are not playing golf" line of thinking to -

Is Cart Golf a different experience from Walking Golf?

I had an interesting conversation with a scratch golfer this w/e who playes a ton of tournaments and is definitely an accomplished player. We did not agree on much over the round, which is totally cool, everyone is entitled to their opinions (I firmly believe that Trails is a superior course to Bandon Dunes, to start).

One of the things we really disagreed on was "the walking experience vs riding experience" - he does not differentiate between the two, but I do, I think there is a big difference (again just my opinion).

His thinking was that the game of golf is the same no matter how you play it - you hit your drive, you hit your approach, you make your putt. Whether walking or riding it is the same thing.

While the scoring process is the same - I do not believe that the experience is the same at all for a myriad of reasons that have been discussed in depth on these types of threads.

For this reason, I advocate the design and construction of walking friendly golf courses whenever possible (given a reasonable site of course). This gives the golfer a choice in how they want to experience the game. And gets people exercising, etc. etc.

I am not advocating that people do not play "unwalkable" courses - I also do not recall anyone else saying that on any thread. ie) That course is unwalkable, stay away! If you love the game you should play it wherever and however you want. BUT, cart golf is a different experience than walking golf -

Is it not?

Thus, the question back to Jim from an architect's perspective is - How do you decide which way to go given a site that is 50/50? Is it ever possible to build a "great walking/riding course" or is it always better to design a "great riding course" (is that "nicer" than saying "cart golf" course?)

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #80 on: September 22, 2009, 06:01:35 PM »
There is clearly a difference between the game as played from a cart and played walking. My perspective is different from Melvyn's, as I see them both as golf, but that's probably easier to say for someone born and raised in the United States on courses where carts have always been an option (an option taken by many (sometimes myself included) regardless of how easily walkable a course might be). For Melvyn, and for many others, one is golf and one is cartball, and one is worth doing and the other isn't. I can understand that perspective. The easiest way to express that feeling is by walking the golf course and avoiding the cart. On this discussion group Melvyn stands up for what he believes and doesn't relent, and calls it the way he sees it. I've felt that he comes across as holier-than-thou now and again, but characterizing him as "the village idiot" strikes me as unfair, and un-called-for.

Here's a few of those "clear differences:"

Walking is exercise. A putt is harder to make if the heart is pounding a bit after an uphill walk. Fitness plays a part in the game. Certainly not the part that it plays in other more strenuous games, but a part nonetheless. The more fit golfer is better able to hit the necessary shots late in a round. For the very fit athlete this may seem like a joke, but for many it makes a difference.

Walking gives me better perspective on distance, and on my next shot. It's like when you go from traveling by car to traveling by train to traveling by airplane.......as the trip gets faster, your perspective on exactly what your covering changes. Golf is a game where distances, and perspective on distance matters.

In golf the venue matters. More than in baseball or basketball or soccer or hockey or tennis........each course is uniquely different. Walking the course is a more connective experience. Riding puts something between you and that experience.

I feel like I'm just yammering on, and not making much sense, but to me these and many other differences between walking golf and riding golf exist. The greater point for each golfer is not whether or not they are different but how important and compelling those differences are. For the scratch golfer Rob mentioned in his post, the differences obviously don't matter so much. I'm more in the middle - I certainly prefer to walk, but have often taken a cart. For many on this board, and Melvyn particularly, using a cart is anathema to the game. For designers of new courses and the owners who are paying them, the use of carts and the inclusions of cart paths in design is complicated and driven by forces I can't claim to know about. For those who renovate existing courses that were built before the advent of the cart, the choice of building cart paths, etc., is a dicey one.

That said, I appreciate Jim Engh coming into this group and letting us in on how he works. I'm sure he knows this is a tough room. Playing his courses, I've never felt like the holes were created with carts or cart paths specifically in mind. For me the cart path is like a referee when watching a football game - if I remember them too much, then something was probably wrong. I can't say I have a strong memory of a cart path on the courses of Jim Engh's that I've played. I do remember a lot of the  holes, though. My main design issue with cart paths is when they're too visible, or especially when they cut across the fairway in front of a green. I'm sure in the cases where this takes place there's a reason for it, or a need for it, or something.....but still.

"The grass is always greener when it bursts up through concrete"
                                            
                                                               -Andy Partridge
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Melvyn Morrow

Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #81 on: September 22, 2009, 06:06:49 PM »

If there is no difference in Cart Golf vs. Golf, then why is the design of these Cart Balling courses different? Why does the routing need to be altered. As I asked earlier, before all this bitterness set in, yet no one has yet has bothered to explain the reason.

If the games is the same, the yardage is within the same 6,500-7000 yds, the Green the same and the only thing that all say is different is riding a cart why is there a requirement for an alternative design. I am not talking about Green to Tee distance.

If the design is changed for carting and no walking is allowed then say what you want, its not true golf. Scream, shout call me names, still makes no difference its not true golf, by definition the course has been designed for Carts, so Cart Balling is the name of the game.

Melvyn

PS Pat do you ever tire of bring up Old Tomís name. How many times do I have to tell you that through my Hunter blood I am also related to Charlie Hunter of Prestwick, Robert, John & Jack Hunter, Willie Russack (German Designer), not forgetting George Morris Jack Morris, well I can go on with still a few more names. I make my post clear that itís my opinions I am discussing. Still upset because you feel that more people read my posts than yours. Christ, I have heard of reasons to hold a grudge but that is one of the most pathetic I have ever come across. GCA.com is not a competition itís a blog.   

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #82 on: September 22, 2009, 06:08:35 PM »
Kirk,

Thanks for the thoughtful response - I did not think it was yammering at all and it made sense (I would imagine for those who walk, those who walk sometimes and those who ride).

These are the kinds of posts that make the site great to be a part of.

Jay Flemma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #83 on: September 22, 2009, 06:13:43 PM »
As usual, Kirk makes a lot of sense and gets his point across with civility!

A toast to kirk...\_/

(that's a shot glass by the way.  Kirk, name your poison.)
Mackenzie, MacRayBanks, Maxwell, Doak, Dye, Strantz. @JayGolfUSA, GNN Radio Host of Jay's Plays www.cybergolf.com/writerscorner

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #84 on: September 22, 2009, 06:17:56 PM »
Kirk,

I will also say Bravo and well done, nicely said.  They are indeed different experiences and just because they are different doesn't mean one is "bad" and one is "good"....there are usually only preferences at the end of the day!!
« Last Edit: September 22, 2009, 06:30:46 PM by Kalen Braley »

Jay Flemma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #85 on: September 22, 2009, 06:21:12 PM »
exactly Kalen...you can dislike courses that are an easy walk and like courses that are tougher...and vice versa.
Mackenzie, MacRayBanks, Maxwell, Doak, Dye, Strantz. @JayGolfUSA, GNN Radio Host of Jay's Plays www.cybergolf.com/writerscorner

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #86 on: September 22, 2009, 06:25:29 PM »
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

Thank you, Matt.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #87 on: September 22, 2009, 06:35:34 PM »


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.

Why does he have to do that? The USGA has labeled it cartball, so technically he is already right. The USGA says if you are not walking you are not playing golf! Melvyn simply is in compliance with the USGA! How more American can he get?
 :P


 ;)

In all sincerity, could you reference the USGA labeling riding as cartball?  I'm familiar with the walking pledge, and know that the program goes back to 1995, but I'd like to see in print where the USGA said that walking was not playing golf.  I've never read that, and would love to see it in black and white.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #88 on: September 22, 2009, 06:36:35 PM »
After reading a thoughtful post by Jim Engh, one of the many architects that takes the time to discuss, debate and teach those of us not directly involved in the design business (the majority of the 1500 people on this board), I muddle through almost 4 pages of crap that continues to drive people in the gca business away from here.  Thank you to those that tried to continue rational discussion based on Engh's posting.

Boys, many of you are taking yourselves far too seriously.

Ken

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #89 on: September 22, 2009, 06:41:01 PM »


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.

Why does he have to do that? The USGA has labeled it cartball, so technically he is already right. The USGA says if you are not walking you are not playing golf! Melvyn simply is in compliance with the USGA! How more American can he get?
 :P


 ;)

In all sincerity, could you reference the USGA labeling riding as cartball?  I'm familiar with the walking pledge, and know that the program goes back to 1995, but I'd like to see in print where the USGA said that walking was not playing golf.  I've never read that, and would love to see it in black and white.

You got it AG. It's in the booklet they published to go with the walking pledge.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #90 on: September 22, 2009, 06:45:10 PM »
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.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the interesting post.  One thing that caught my eye was how low the construction costs were at Lakota Canyon.  I believe one of the major precieved drawbacks of mountain golf is the high cost of the course and follow on tho high green fees.

Tom Doak recently provided an interesting cost breakdown for his work at Common Ground.  Are you able to provide any more information on the costs at Lakota Canyon and/or mountain sites in general.  

Or are you able to generally compare the types of costs you incurr on mountain sites compared to other sites.



Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #91 on: September 22, 2009, 06:56:48 PM »


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.

Why does he have to do that? The USGA has labeled it cartball, so technically he is already right. The USGA says if you are not walking you are not playing golf! Melvyn simply is in compliance with the USGA! How more American can he get?
 :P


 ;)

In all sincerity, could you reference the USGA labeling riding as cartball?  I'm familiar with the walking pledge, and know that the program goes back to 1995, but I'd like to see in print where the USGA said that walking was not playing golf.  I've never read that, and would love to see it in black and white.

You got it AG. It's in the booklet they published to go with the walking pledge.

Do you happen to have a copy of the booklet handy so that you could speed the process and quote it for me?  I walk almost exactly 80% of my rounds, and I guess I should have taken the pledge by now, but never have and so do not possess said booklet.  Help a brother out and quote it for me.
Thanks.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #92 on: September 22, 2009, 07:07:31 PM »
"If you're not walking, you're not playing golf. You might be playing "cart-ball," but it's not golf." from A Call to Feet "Golf is a Walking Game", USGA, 1995
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Peter Pallotta

Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #93 on: September 22, 2009, 07:14:48 PM »
the only question worth asking is whether an architect has managed to maximize the routing/golfing potential of a given site, and whether the a priori choice to require carts and cart paths has helped or hindered that goal.

Peter   

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #94 on: September 22, 2009, 07:16:05 PM »
Garland,

The USGA also recommends that every green should be a "USGA green".  Does this mean you will refuse to play a course that does not have USGA "approved" greens!!   ;D

I look to the USGA for the official rules.  To my knowlegde, there is nothing that specifically says players must walk in the rules.  So anything beyond the rule book are just guidelines!!

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #95 on: September 22, 2009, 07:25:08 PM »
Garland,

The USGA also recommends that every green should be a "USGA green".  Does this mean you will refuse to play a course that does not have USGA "approved" greens!!   ;D

I look to the USGA for the official rules.  To my knowlegde, there is nothing that specifically says players must walk in the rules.  So anything beyond the rule book are just guidelines!!

Did the USGA say if it's not build to USGA green spec then it is not a green? I think not! Try apples to apples next time.  ;D
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #96 on: September 22, 2009, 08:08:01 PM »
To the best of my knowledge, the USGA expects (even requires) golfers to post scores of all completed rounds for USGA GHIN handicapping purposes. The scores are to be entered regardless of whether the golfer has walked of played his round riding in a cart. In terms of calculating GHIN, scores are in no way adjusted for either circumstance. The same goes for whether or not a golfer takes a caddie or uses a rangefinder for his round.

In my mind, that is clear evidence that, aside from championship events, the USGA considers playing in either fashion to be "golf." 

That being said, I fully support the USGA's efforts to promote walking whenever and wherever possible.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #97 on: September 22, 2009, 09:23:09 PM »

96 replies, but still no answer to my question why should a Cart Ball courses require a different design to a walking courses in mountain areas?

Is it really more important to mock honest questions than to get answers, just what are you guys afraid of?

Melvyn

C. Squier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #98 on: September 22, 2009, 09:36:20 PM »

96 replies, but still no answer to my question why should a Cart Ball courses require a different design to a walking courses in mountain areas?

Is it really more important to mock honest questions than to get answers, just what are you guys afraid of?

Melvyn


I would assume it's incredibly expensive to build bridges over the large ravines that mountain courses almost always have.  A cart can wind off in another direction to get you around such features.  You could possibly (though on some courses, probably not completely) route around those ravines to solve this issue, but may lead to a less interesting course. 

Part of what I dislike greatly about mountain courses is from this.  You get in the cart, wind down the mountain in some weird direction and pop out in an unexpected place.  Gets really confusing where the routing is coming/going, but unavoidable unless you're a sherpa.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ....so much fuss over concrete...
« Reply #99 on: September 22, 2009, 10:14:30 PM »
Jim,
Great post.  As everyone has said, very candid and very honest.  I have played a number of your courses and recognize that you often take on sites that without carts, golf might not exist.  You've done some amazing work on property where others would have never thought golf was possible. 

Having said that, I do have to make one observation that I'd like to hear your comments about - I have played literally hundreds of rounds of golf in England, Scotland and Ireland on dozens and dozens of courses all over these countries and can count on one hand (or less) the number of times I took a cart (or felt I needed one).  Why do you think that is?  Do you think "better golf" sacrificed on many of those courses for the sake of walking or did the thought of incorporting a hole that did not allow walking never cross the architect's mind? 
Mark

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back