Modern course design. Do they really expect us to walk these things?

[No Mulligans]

6 minutes ago, Lihu said:

They took away a lot of the bunkers at the Retreat. I've never played it with all the old bunkers, so it wasn't quite as horrible as you described? Yeah, Eagle Glen is a pretty nice course. They also have those tee time specials advertised in the golf magazines. The Trilogy felt like a casual senior course. I liked it, but definitely not walk-able.

And I believe you are still playing Brookside, an old course the way they use to design them.  From what I remember, that is a great walking course.

[Lihu]

3 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

And I believe you are still playing Brookside.  From what I remember, that is a great walking course.

Yes, it is, and I walk it as often as I can when not trying to finish up 18 holes in 3 hours or less.

It's a really good home course, and the season is just starting for me to start playing other courses that are not so walkable.

[Faksakes]

Cabot Links, currently ranked #3 in Canada by Golf Digest was built in 2011 and is walk only. Love the course and love the policy. It's an incredible walk and couldn't imagine carting it.

[WUTiger]

On 4/20/2016 at 7:04 AM, DaveP043 said:

I think this trend is a function of the economics of the golf business.  A golf course simply isn't financially attractive on its own, but if you can combine a golf course with new housing it looks much better to an investor.  Once you make that choice, you want to get the maximum out of each lot, which means you want as many houses as possible to face onto the course. ... 

Legal liability concerns also shape course design these days. Modern architects have a "rule of thumb" that the main traces (center stripes) of adjacent fairways need to be 70 yards or more apart. You don't want golfers to get hit by balls from adjacent holes.

The American Society of Golf Course Architects suggests 150 acres of usable land for the average golf course, where golf is the prime focus. If you end up with holes scattered among housing tracts, this can be a lot larger.

Some older courses in the St. Louis area are 130 acres or less, but this ends up a bit cramped if you want a modern practice range. One country club near where I grew up has a unique practice range: a 50-yard x 100-yard area netted area surrounded on three sides by holes. It now plays to par 68 due to fact it had to sell off a couple of land tracts in the 1950s to forestall bankruptcy.

But, much of the present-day stretch results from wanting to have housing developments designed in with the course. We have five such developments dating from the 1990s in our general area. Problem is, only one of the five courses sold most of its lots. The others - including one that shut down two years ago - have swatches of nice houses surrounded by idyllic grasslands (acres of one-time housing plots that didn't sell).

 

[CR McDivot]

Check the stats below of playing length vs total length of a few courses in my area -

This is from middle tees of comparative lengths. Distances from green to tee include clubhouse to #1, and #18 to clubhouse.

Todd Creek green fees typically include cart, as walking would be REALLY tough.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 5/9/2016 at 0:54 PM, WUTiger said:

Legal liability concerns also shape course design these days. Modern architects have a "rule of thumb" that the main traces (center stripes) of adjacent fairways need to be 70 yards or more apart. You don't want golfers to get hit by balls from adjacent holes.

The American Society of Golf Course Architects suggests 150 acres of usable land for the average golf course, where golf is the prime focus. If you end up with holes scattered among housing tracts, this can be a lot larger.

Some older courses in the St. Louis area are 130 acres or less, but this ends up a bit cramped if you want a modern practice range. One country club near where I grew up has a unique practice range: a 50-yard x 100-yard area netted area surrounded on three sides by holes. It now plays to par 68 due to fact it had to sell off a couple of land tracts in the 1950s to forestall bankruptcy.

But, much of the present-day stretch results from wanting to have housing developments designed in with the course. We have five such developments dating from the 1990s in our general area. Problem is, only one of the five courses sold most of its lots. The others - including one that shut down two years ago - have swatches of nice houses surrounded by idyllic grasslands (acres of one-time housing plots that didn't sell).

 

I can appreciate your point. I played a full size course here in NE Ohio, that was shoe horned into too small of an area. Playing there, you had to be like a guy walking point on patrol! Stuff could come flying at you from any where!

On the other hand, I played a course up there that no longer exists. It was called Thunder Hill. When you played a hole there, it was like it was the only golf hole on earth! It is the single most spectacular golf course I have ever played. I've played Spyglass Hill on the Monterey Peninsula, and Spyglass isn't even close!

[Coronagolfman]

On 4/20/2016 at 11:47 AM, Chilli Dipper said:

There's also this idea among a lot of architects that the worst thing you can do in laying out a course is make golfers play a hole uphill. The only way to do that on a hilly site, of course, is to have many holes where you tee off on a hill, play into a valley, then make a steep uphill climb to the next tee. A routing that does this is completely unwalkable, but it lends itself well to pictures on real estate brochures.

Good point - a lot of the newer courses in Orange and Riverside County are built just that way as the only land available for golf courses is on the side of some very steep slopes

[colin007]

On 5/9/2016 at 1:06 AM, Faksakes said:

Cabot Links, currently ranked #3 in Canada by Golf Digest was built in 2011 and is walk only. Love the course and love the policy. It's an incredible walk and couldn't imagine carting it.

 

I love that. Fantastic idea. 

I know it shouldn't, but it really chaps my ass to see young fit twenty-somethings taking a cart on my home course, which if not for the trees is flat enough for you to see clear from one end to the other if you stood on a step ladder. Lazy slugs.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 5/13/2016 at 4:18 PM, colin007 said:

 

I love that. Fantastic idea. 

I know it shouldn't, but it really chaps my ass to see young fit twenty-somethings taking a cart on my home course, which if not for the trees is flat enough for you to see clear from one end to the other if you stood on a step ladder. Lazy slugs.

That's pretty unique for a course in this day and age. One of the courses I mentioned earlier, Mill Creek Park, is gently sloped and very walkable. Some of the newer tracks, with their extreme elevation changes are too much for these shot knees to walk!

Happily, last week I was re-introduced to a course I hadn't played in ages. It's a little 9 hole affair, kinda sorta out in the boonies a little. It is as flat as a table top, but every hole is bordered by immense oaks or pines. It's been around forever, my Dad used to take me there 50 years ago. I had simply forgotten about it, dismissing it as "too easy". I thought the greens were flat, they were anything but. I thought the greens were slow, they were not. I thought the turfgrass was all clover and weeds. It's not a country club, but it's far from that. And I will say that the full length driving range has turf on the tees better than most places around here!

So, my friend and I played and enjoyed ourselves immensely. On the way into the clubhouse for our post round beer(s), I noticed a sign advertising an opening for a 2 man team league. Long story short, we joined up and our first league round will be tomorrow. Been a long time since I've been in a league, and I'm looking forward to it.

[bogdan101]

This thread is proof that golf is not a sport 

[Buckeyebowman]

15 hours ago, bogdan101 said:

This thread is proof that golf is not a sport 

You're right. It's a game. As are all others.

[Pretzel]

On 5/9/2016 at 10:59 AM, CR McDivot said:

Check the stats below of playing length vs total length of a few courses in my area -

This is from middle tees of comparative lengths. Distances from green to tee include clubhouse to #1, and #18 to clubhouse.

Todd Creek green fees typically include cart, as walking would be REALLY tough.

I like Todd Creek though, it's a nice course. I actually have a tournament there the first weekend of June, walking.

It's certainly better than Walking Stick down in Pueblo. I had a tournament rules official berate me for being "out of position" on the course when I was walking off a green, despite the fact that two groups were already stacked up on the next teebox. The teebox was just so far away he thought for sure there was a hole in between (and there is a hole sort of in between, it just runs the other way). That's the only place I have ever encountered a seven hour round of golf, which was terrible since it was about 95* out that day (too hot for my liking). 

[par-tee boy]

I like walking a flat course but the hilly ones, I'm carting it. I may need to join a golf fit class but 4 right nowI'll just keep it that way!

[Otis2014]

Thanks to Whistling Straits there is now a move in Wisconsin to build courses that are walking-only.

Erin Hills, the site of the 2017 U.S. Open, has to be walked.

http://erinhills.com/

And now, Ben Crenshaw is trying to re-create Bandon Dunes ...

http://www.sandvalleygolfresort.com/

 

 

 

[ladders11]

On 4/19/2016 at 10:33 PM, Buckeyebowman said:

About 20 years ago (I guess) a new course was opened in our area called Firestone Farms. It was built on the Firestone (think Firestone Tire and Rubber) family's farm outside Columbiana, OH. One Sunday I happened to be listening to the radio and heard an announcement that the course was open for a sneak preview. I called everyone I knew who golfed, but they were all busy, so I went out by myself.

I bought 9 holes, walking, and proceeded to the first tee which was perched up on top of "Gobbler's Knob! At least the view was impressive. I played the first and followed the cart path to the second tee, which was about 1/2 mile away! As were many of the tees! I understand the architect wanting to site each hole in the ideal place, but it can get rough on a walker. I loved the track but vowed I'd ride in further rounds. I was exhausted after walking 9!

Hi Buckeye, I see your point to some extent but I have also played Firestone Farms, several years ago. I remember it fondly and have just checked maps to confirm.  There was indeed a long drive right away, after the second hole and looks like the next few holes or so had houses adjacent. However the back nine was (no surprise) mostly just farms. I enjoyed it and despite the fact it is a cart course, all rates include cart and given its location and design, it is a screaming value for $25-35 dollars only as high as $45 before 2 on weekends.

Now for comparison I will post an old fashioned course... the way things were. This is a 36 hole course from 1922. These were flatter courses, tighter courses, more walkable and without houses in between.

As you can see, holes go back and forth, and blur together; and I can confirm, golfers here need to stay alert for balls flying at them from slicers on adjacent holes.

To make matters more interesting, this course was designed by none other than Donald Ross. 

Which would you rather play?

[bkuehn1952]

I like the movement toward "walking" courses as long as the green to tee distance remains reasonable.  An architect has to balance the separation of holes with the length of the trek.  I have not been to Streamsong but I understand that the walk is fairly lengthy (8 miles??) on one of the courses.  That seems a bit lengthy.  Too much "dead time" trudging between holes takes away from the game.  There is plenty of time to chat and view nature while walking to one's ball.

[nevets88]

After recording rounds walking this season, not particularly long courses, with a pedometer, 9-10 miles (16K) is the average distance walked based on my anecdotal and probably somewhat accurate smartphone pedometer app.

These modern courses with the long distances between holes, you're probably walking a half marathon playing 18. Play 36 and you've done a marathon and 2 rounds of golf.

So those guys playing 36 holes in match play if it goes to the end or more are pretty much walking the distance of a marathon: ~26M or ~50K. That, puts a new spin on things from my perspective.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 5/30/2016 at 6:17 PM, ladders11 said:

Hi Buckeye, I see your point to some extent but I have also played Firestone Farms, several years ago. I remember it fondly and have just checked maps to confirm.  There was indeed a long drive right away, after the second hole and looks like the next few holes or so had houses adjacent. However the back nine was (no surprise) mostly just farms. I enjoyed it and despite the fact it is a cart course, all rates include cart and given its location and design, it is a screaming value for $25-35 dollars only as high as $45 before 2 on weekends.

Now for comparison I will post an old fashioned course... the way things were. This is a 36 hole course from 1922. These were flatter courses, tighter courses, more walkable and without houses in between.

As you can see, holes go back and forth, and blur together; and I can confirm, golfers here need to stay alert for balls flying at them from slicers on adjacent holes.

To make matters more interesting, this course was designed by none other than Donald Ross. 

Which would you rather play?

Hey, small world! Don't get me wrong, I really like Firestone Farms and we play it quite a few times every year. You're absolutely right, it's an incredible deal for the money! However, they have flip flopped the nines since their opening. So I played what is now the back nine, the one through all the open farmland, with the par 3 across Beaver Lake. With all the natural areas and wetlands that they preserved, it's understandable that the holes are kind of spread out. The architect had plenty of land to work with.

BTW, the architect is Brian Huntley, who seems to do most of his work right here in Ohio. If you're ever back in this area, he designed another course call Kennsington, which is a must play. A little more expensive than Firestone Farms, but still a bargain. Some really spectacular holes, and the greens are incredible!

Not far from there is a course that could be a twin of your 36 hole example. Oddly enough, it was also designed by Donal Ross back in the late 1920's. It is Mill Creek Park Golf Courses. Two 18's, North and South courses, and it is wonderful to walk! Traditional design with relatively short walks from green to tee, but the design is so brilliant that even the worst slices or hooks rarely impinge on another hole! I've played more golf there than any other course around.

Again, if you're ever back in this area, try any of these courses. I know you'll love them.