News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Andrew Buck

  • Karma: +0/-0
At what point does it negatively impact the experience.

In this case, I'm not talking about a residential course but a continuous parcel on relatively homogeneous land.

I played Highlands of Elgin early this morning, and the holes are all very good and the condition was as good (and firm) as can be expected given the wet spring.  That said, there were three walks of approximately 300 yards between holes, with three occasions of walking past another tee.  I suspect a portion of this was dictated by the fact that 9 holes (with one temporary hole) were built 10 years before the newer nine and the desire to use the entire quarry "shore" for golf holes.  

While I really liked the short par 4 13th, I'm not sure it was a good enough hole to warrant a 300 yard walk to the 14th tee (while passing 18).  I think this stuck out even more to me because it was a drivable Par 4 between two reachable par 5's (downhill 530, and uphill 510).  

In addition, the first two holes certainly provide the best start around the clubhouse, as the 1st is a prototypical gentle handshake and the 2nd a good uphill par 5, but once again I'm not sure it's worth a 300 yard walk past 10 tee to get to the third.  Overall, I thought Highlands was as good of public offering you will find in Chicagoland, and considering I walked in 2:30 for $40, I'll rush back there when I can.  That said, the long walks left me feeling as though it wasn't as good as it could be.  

Basically, if up to you, would you take better holes with a somewhat disjointed flow, or sacrifice a little in the golf holes to have the ground flow better?
« Last Edit: May 14, 2015, 02:04:09 PM by Andrew Buck »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Such a great question!

We had a discussion about one of the holes on Streamsong Blue that touched on this kind of a thing.

I'd guess it would have to be a case by case basis that took into consideration the quality of the hole and the aggravation of the extra walking issues.

Any more examples people can think of that touch on this issue?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Andrew Buck

  • Karma: +0/-0
delete

Peter Pallotta

As Mac says, but also:

I think there are few golf experiences that are more taste/personal preference dependent. For me, I don't mind so-called transition holes, and in general a good golf hole is good enough for me, especially if there are a series of them strung together in a flowing, elegant, and easily-walkable way. I don't need a great golf hole; I'm not sure I could tell it from merely a good one, but even if I could telll any extra pleasure I might have in playing it would be off-set by the turn-abouts and long walks nneded to get there.

Peter  

Andrew Buck

  • Karma: +0/-0
As a golfer, you don't truly know what you'd be missing if a "lesser" hole was built, that minimized the green to tee walk, however that long walk certainly sticks out.  In reality, I'd guess 80% of the play on this public course is riding carts, so I'm not sure if that *should* change the answer for the architect and make him more willing to build the hole he desires at expense of the walk between holes.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
How about this for a rule of thumb?  Ask yourself, would this be the routing I would have chosen if golf carts did not exist?  If the answer is no, then come up with a routing that would work as a walking only golf course.

This isn't to say that golf carts shouldn't exist.  But it is to say that golf courses designed from the walker's perspective generally offer a better overall golfing experience for both walkers and riders.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Brent Hutto

If it's a course designed around golf carts, the question becomes moot. Let them drive where ever on the property you want to put a hole.

But when someone sets out to build a course under the expectation that it would normally be walked, then to me the answer seems clear. You don't route the golfers 400 yards out of their way just to utilize one spectacular feature of the land. Either that one (potential) hole is worth routing the rest of the course to make it convenient or else skip it and build the best holes you can with a good routing.

I suspect the ubiquity of golf carts has subtly swung the first recourse of most architects toward making substantial compromises in the flow of the routing in order to gain slightly more memorable, varied or beautiful holes. Or even just to get the best view in some cases. There are very, very few courses built in the past couple decades for which a compromised (walking) routing of this type would be held against them by their typical users.

P.S. David and I posted at the same time and I agree with his formulation of the decision rule. However, I do not think many owners or designers of golf courses nowadays see the situation as we do...
« Last Edit: May 14, 2015, 02:28:57 PM by Brent Hutto »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
P.S. David and I posted at the same time and I agree with his formulation of the decision rule. However, I do not think many owners or designers of golf courses nowadays see the situation as we do...

True . . . but this might help explain why so many bad golf courses have been built during the cart ball era.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Brent Hutto

It goes a long way to explaining the typical bad-to-mediocre course built in the 80's and 90's in my neck of the woods, for sure.

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
I wasn’t involved when the second nine was added to our course.  However, squeezing nine more holes on a fairly small acreage (120) resulted in almost a thousand yards of walk backs.  Otherwise the course is very walkable.  Savvy walkers leave their bags and just take what clubs they need to play a green or tee.  I’ve rerouted the course for a future renovation that addresses and fixes this issue, but it seems hard to justify in this economy.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
How about this for a rule of thumb?  Ask yourself, would this be the routing I would have chosen if golf carts did not exist?  If the answer is no, then come up with a routing that would work as a walking only golf course.

This isn't to say that golf carts shouldn't exist.  But it is to say that golf courses designed from the walker's perspective generally offer a better overall golfing experience for both walkers and riders.

I like that rule of thumb!

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Brent Hutto

Turning it on its head, for most architects working during the past 20 years a more commercially relevant rule is in play. If walking golfers did not exist, is this the routing I would have chosen?

Because at least in the Southeastern USA, playing golf in a cart has been the normative mode for as long as I've been playing the game.

Andrew Buck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Turning it on its head, for most architects working during the past 20 years a more commercially relevant rule is in play. If walking golfers did not exist, is this the routing I would have chosen?

Because at least in the Southeastern USA, playing golf in a cart has been the normative mode for as long as I've been playing the game.

Honestly, that is what stuck out to me today.  Highlands is a highly ranked modern course that actually addresses a lot of the things that are enjoyed here.  Great width with strategic options that plays firm.  On top of that, it's one of the few courses in the last 30 years fortunate enough to have no residential component. 

Ironically, Elgin also has a relatively recent residential course, which also features width and good playing conditions, however it has fewer long green to tee walks than it's counterpart. 

Paul Stockert

  • Karma: +0/-0
I've been wanting to get out to Highlands, I'll have to try it out walking and see.  Two courses really stuck out to me as examples.  One is Harbor Shores in Michigan.  Jack made it nearly literally unwalkable...I love to walk but you'd be insane to try if they'd actually let you.  But I know that going in, and with the demands of the site it was the only real option and there are some really neat holes.  I'm actually excited to see it this summer with some of the greens toned down.  And I know that course doesn't much love on here, but I've really had some fun playing it...when my driver was on.  I think it's a course that makes a better third or fourth or fifth impression then it does a first one when it plays really tough.  But I digress...

The second example is Erin Hills.  It's a brutal walk (and walking only...make sure to get a caddy).  But they moved minimal dirt so they could use as natural of hole and green sites as they could.  And the holes are magnificent, and the plan got them the Open.  I have to think of they'd made compromises to put the holes closer together it wouldn't be the same course.  But if you head there and grab a pull cart, get ready for some hikes between holes!

~ PJ

“Golf... is the infallible test. The man who can go into a patch of rough alone, with the knowledge that only God is watching him, and play his ball where it lies, is the man who will serve you faithfully and well.”
― P.G. Wodehouse

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
The basic problem with this thread is punters don't know all the info for a given project.  Its hard to really discuss a routing without the facts. I can understand if guys comment on what is in the ground, but unless one is an expert or intimately involved with a project somehow, the routing as a design is really out of bounds as too much is speculative at best. 

That said, there are clearly times when it is obvious an archie made a choice to take golfers on a walk between greens and tees.  For my part, anything more than about 75 yards a handful of times becomes tiresome and a bore...so the holes should be better than good to justify the interruption of the round.  Any good archie should be able to build a good hole practically anywhere within reason so its seems odd to walk golfers whatever distance to another teeing area. 

My rules 

Right out the door I don't want a walk to the 1st tee.  There is a great reward in enjoyment in having the 1st tee near the house.  Ditto for 18...don't make a guy walk unnecessarily to get a beer and a seat.  Have a heart. Archies shouldn't think they are all that that it makes it okay to ignore the house in the routing.  If at possible, make the 19th an essential component in the routing.

If a hole plays toward the house, I don't want to walk away from the house for the tee shot...especially near the end of the round. 

Its fine to have a few climbs for tees shots, but generally its better to stick with less walking and lower tees. 

If you make me walk, give me a great reward.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
I obviously travel a great deal to see other architects work including my peers.

The one consistent observation I will make that is critical of certain peers is they often go to "high up" in their routing.
A little restraint in the routing choices would have yielded better results.

I find the super elevated tee to be obnoxious, rather than a thrill. Generally that routing choice either sacrifices holes along the way or they make me continually walk up a cliff between holes to get to the next tee. In almost every case a lower tee would have yielded a much better result overall. In most instances, once you sacrifice walkability, I believe you abandoned the better routing for a single moment/photograph
... and that's not a good routing IMHO
"Appreciate the constructive; ignore the destructive." -- John Douglas

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Ian -

In theory, being able to route holes without regard to walkability (awful word, btw) should make more good holes possible because more routings are possible.

That additional freedom, however, can be an asset or a liability depending on the architect it is given to. You note elevated tees. A hallmark of Fazio courses is their elevated, big vista tees many of which can't be gotten to without a cart. I share your opinion of such holes for the most part.

On the other hand, there might be other kinds of very good holes lying on the property that, for whatever reason, simply can't be used without cart access.

So I'd imagine weighing the walkability factor must be a tough call for architects. It probably forces those inclined to do minimalist designs to give up some wonderful holes.

Bob

     

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Sean has it right. Every project is a bit different, maybe every hole, and the calculation varies.  No doubt that all factors being equal, as David M say, you should route it to walk it.  But, as Sean and Brent say, sometimes that just isn't possible, given either parcel shape or subsurface rock, wetlands, etc.

As to Ian's point, I recall that exact discussion on the second hole at Cowboys.  We considered a low tee, but then took it up the hill for that snapshot view. It was going to be 100% carts, it had to be one of the most dramatic drops in the DFW market (outside Dallas National) and would be unique in that way in taking the most advantage of the landscape.  So, was it wrong to consider it in terms of regional context, possible revenue enhancer for the Owner? (You know, Jerry really needs that money!)

I also recall another project where we had 400 acres to choose from, and my associate laid holes over the entire property.  A quick tally of the extra irrigation main and cart path showed the extra expense of a loose routing, and we found similar holes closer in to save money.  As a lower end public course, walking was a larger component among the cost conscious customers.  So, staying as tight as possible has many natural benefits.

Lastly, the course I played most as a kid had a few walk arounds to get from one tee to another, along with consecutive par 5 holes and an 18th hole par 3 (Old Orchard, Mt. Prospect, IL, since changed, reduced, etc.) The designer part of me always thought some of that was cool, because it seemed to break the rules about going right to the next tee. In one case, the crossover also brought you closer to the rest room/snack bar. 

Over time, seeing so many golfers get lost (in the CCFAD era, so many golfers played each new course once a year and weren't as familiar as a club course might be) sort of knocked the idea of crossovers out of my mind as a good idea. I could see why the "standard" of an short trip, easy to find next tee made loads of sense.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Peter Pallotta

If an architect knows (or at least believes) that there are one or more excellent golf holes out there that he can only fit into the routing by assuming the use of carts, I might have a difference of opinion with him or dislike the final product but I couldn't blame him for his choices. But on more than one course I've played over the years it seemed clear that, once the architect justified to himself (in the name of having one/two/more excellent holes) this cart-preferred routing, he next justified an 'in for a penny in for a pound' approach -- and began to route the entire course (good, great, bad and indifferent holes alike) in this cart-based context. And for this kind of laziness on the architect's part, I think I can blame him, especially since the results (for me) spoke for themselves, i.e, an in-elegant, un-flowing, twisted routing that produced neither an enjoyable experience (either walking or carting) nor an apparent excess of good/excellent golf holes. In short, that architect failed the golfer on two fronts instead of (at most) just one. What he gained via that approach is, I'm assuming, one or more new postcards for his resume.

Peter
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 11:46:30 AM by PPallotta »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Of course, it is true that "outsiders" don't have all the information about a course's routing options.  But that doesn't mean they can't notice if something isn't ideal.  There may be an excuse for something not being ideal on a golf course, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't ideal.

If an architect is charged with building a golf course through a housing development, are we supposed to ignore the fact that there is a housing development engulfing the golf course?  No, of course not.  Rather we notice that he/she routed the course across streets and between houses.  The holes themselves might be very good and we notice that too.

But in the end, we play courses in the state in which they are in their current place in time.  And with that there are certain things that are preferable, if a compromise is made...then so be it.  But golfers aren't going to ignore it and give it a pass.  It is there and it is real.

 
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
This issue came up when I played Erin Hills earlier this week with a group of friends. It's a walking-only course; take a caddie or carry your bag. As the name of the course implies, there's plenty of elevation change. The management suggests a 4:55 pace of play, so you know it's going to be a trek.

Things were fine until we finished the 400-yard par four #4, then turned around and walked back almost the length of the hole to the hit a blind tee shot on #5. There were some other long walks between green and tee on later holes, but nothing quite that puzzling. Nobody could figure out why Hurdzan, Fry and Whitten came up with that routing for a walking-only course -- especially given that they had over 600 acres to work with, and the 5th is not one of the most memorable holes on the course. But, as Sean and Jeff have mentioned, we weren't privy to the construction details. It just seemed odd.  
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Andrew Buck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Of course, it is true that "outsiders" don't have all the information about a course's routing options.  But that doesn't mean they can't notice if something isn't ideal.  There may be an excuse for something not being ideal on a golf course, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't ideal.

If an architect is charged with building a golf course through a housing development, are we supposed to ignore the fact that there is a housing development engulfing the golf course?  No, of course not.  Rather we notice that he/she routed the course across streets and between houses.  The holes themselves might be very good and we notice that too.

But in the end, we play courses in the state in which they are in their current place in time.  And with that there are certain things that are preferable, if a compromise is made...then so be it.  But golfers aren't going to ignore it and give it a pass.  It is there and it is real.

 

I agree Mac. 

With the course I referenced in the OP, I suspect that timing of the build (a decade later for newer 9, and one temporary hole) impacts this flow.

That said, it's a very good collection of holes that still may be less enjoyable to walk than some other courses with slightly inferior holes.

Peter Pallotta

Rick - I'm rarely critical of specific architects or courses on here; and it is kind/generous of you and Jeff and Sean to note than we're none of us 'privy to the construction details'.  But on a hole (and course, and 600 acres) like the one you describe, does anyone think that such 'construction details', whatever they may be, would be enough to explain -- or even less, justify -- such a mess? I can't think of a single golf hole in the entire world "great" enough to balance out that routing.

Peter
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 12:54:03 PM by PPallotta »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Of course, it is true that "outsiders" don't have all the information about a course's routing options.  But that doesn't mean they can't notice if something isn't ideal.  There may be an excuse for something not being ideal on a golf course, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't ideal.

But in the end, we play courses in the state in which they are in their current place in time.  And with that there are certain things that are preferable, if a compromise is made...then so be it.  But golfers aren't going to ignore it and give it a pass.  It is there and it is real.

Mac:

I guess my problem with having these discussions on Golf Club Atlas is just as you say ... that everybody has their own definition of "ideal," and that I am somehow making "excuses" for my design decisions if I don't try and hit YOUR ideal.

Sure, the ideal would be for every tee to be right next to every green.  Of course, that is pretty much impossible because we don't all play from the same tees, and then topography sometimes has something to say about the matter.  The bottom line is that NO course is EVER ideal, so to me, comparing them all to some ideal and judging them by how they've failed is ridiculous.  You should take courses and routings for what they are, and not work so hard on criticizing them for what they're not.

I think I'm as big a proponent of walkability as almost anyone on this site, yet the two projects where my routings have caused the biggest arguments on GCA are Dismal River, where my very tight green-to-tee routing clashes with some people's ideal that the 18th green should be next to the first tee, even if neither of them is anywhere near the clubhouse, and Streamsong, where the inclusion of the 7th hole and the routing of the other 18 holes necessitated a long green-to-tee walk that some find offensive.  Both courses are quite walkable, yet they have been loudly criticized for not being walkable ENOUGH, and these are not instances where I passed up a perfectly good tee to set you up for a view; the reasons were fundamental to the project we were assigned.

I do agree with Ian, there are many examples on modern courses where architects opt to stretch out the green-to-tee rides to make the view from the next tee more dramatic, when the hole would have been fine if it had been played from closer to the previous green.  But, that is not ALWAYS an option, and to set the ideal that it should be just ignores the realities of real-world design.

I've been wrestling with this very question as I write reviews for Volume 2 of The Confidential Guide.  In warm-season climates, there is much more temptation for designers to ignore walkability, because there are some months when nearly every golfer is going to ride, and even in the rest, the local standard is for most players to take carts.  So should I judge courses differently based on this reality?  I've come to the conclusion that I should, at least a little bit.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tom,  I certainly didn't have any your courses in mind when I mentioned "bad courses" that ignore what I suggested as a rule of thumb, and I doubt anyone else was considering your work when discussing architects who ignore walking in favor of chasing the next great vista.  It seems you are more on the other end of the spectrum on this issue.  In fact I had a couple of your courses in mind when I first thought of the rule of thumb I mentioned. 

As for how one should view courses which ignore walkability in climates where not that many people walk, if it were me I'd probably not give them a pass.  This comes from by belief that the coherence, cohesiveness, and connectedness of a golf course matters, whether or not people end up walking the course.  Let me give you the two examples I was thinking of above, Stone Eagle and Rock Creek.   Stone Eagle is walkable but it is a tough walk and I think it fair to say that the vast majority of rounds will be in cart.  Rock Creek seems easier than Stone Eagle, but it is still a tough walk, and I imagine quite a few ride in carts.   

Would either of these courses have been better if you had abandoned the idea of making them walkable courses, and just spread the holes out all over, regardless of promimity?  I'd argue no. They both work well as golf courses because there is a coherence, cohesiveness, and connection between the golf holes (with perhaps an inevitable exception or two on each course.) This is true if one is in a cart or on foot.  So why should it be any different for courses where it is hot?  How is a course with a challenging climate any different than a course where the terrain is challenging?   

If we view a golf course as more than the sum its parts, then these things matter whether we are walking or riding.   
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)