[John Kirk]

I made a final trip to Ballyneal a couple weeks ago.  The weather was spectacular - both before and after our visit.  Man, we played one day with your basic 40/20/sideways spitting rain.  Still had fun.  The afternoon the skies opened up was pretty special.

During one evening, I had a golf discussion with three of our regular GCA contributors: Rich Choi, Daryl David, and Matt Schulte.  Rich lives near Seattle, and is "Chambers Bay's biggest fan."  He is smitten with his new best choice for public golf, and who can blame him?  Chambers Bay is all golf, with no housing, features great long range views of the Sound, and offers a nice variety of golf holes on undulating fescue surfaces.  It's a great place.

During our discussion, Matt shyly offered, "Don't take this the wrong way Rich, but I'm not that impressed with Chambers Bay.", after which I said something along the lines of "I like it a lot, and think it's about a Doak 7."  I'm a pretty tough grader these days, and in this case my Doak 7 ranking means I think it's extraordinary but doesn't quiet stir my emotions.  And Matt agreed with me.  He had thought that perhaps since we were all saying how great it was that we felt it might belong in Doak 9-10 territory.

It occurred to me that Daryl, Matt and I had all played Stone Eagle, and since I wanted to make a point, I asked both of them, "Would you rather play Chambers Bay or Stone Eagle?"  From both, the answer was quick and decisive.  "Well...Stone Eagle." (turning my head to next response)  "Stone Eagle, easy choice."  I immaturely turned my head back towards Rich with a look that said, "See?"

Why was it such an easy choice for the three of us?  I think the question says something about what is valued in a golf experience.  Chambers Bay is a great layout, with a particularly fine set of fours.  The hole sequences 5-6-7 and 14-15-16 are outstanding.  The views of the Olympic Mountains across the Puget Sound are to die for.  The regular procession of trains along the edge of the property is fabulous.  Some of the shortcomings of the Chambers Bay experience have to do with the size of the opertaion and the impersonal nature of public golf.  You check in and are shuttled down to the course in a bus.  The course plays slowly; add the irregular visitor who wishes to make the most of his special round, and the average round is quite long.  Waiting to play, no matter where you are, is a drag.  Finally, as my wife says, "it still looks like a gravel pit".  Superintendent David Wienecke is working diligently, getting the long fescues established in the "native" out-of-play areas, which will enhance the course's beauty when your back is turned away from the water.

Stone Eagle's property is severely canted, which made for some course routing restrictions.  Tom Doak uses three of the par 3s to get across ravines, and virtually all of the par 4s and 5s work their way up and down the hillside.  A couple of the downhill par 4s look quite similar.  It's much less walkable than Chambers Bay, which is walking only.  But after that, the experience of spending the day at Stone Eagle is superior.  You arrive and are fitted with your own golf cart for the day, and are in charge of yourself.  You stop and hit a few shots at the intimate driving range, that features "the most beautiful bunkering ever witnessed on a driving range".  The final trip over the hill to the first tee is so beautiful it takes your breath away.  "Wow.  OK."  The course is generally uncrowded, and rounds take less time.  Although neither course could be considered "natural", Renaissance Golf goes to great lengths to make the course fit in with its surroundings, and it shows.

Also, it doesn't hurt that Stone Eagle's playing conditions are second to none.  Not a blade of grass out of place.

Ultimately, what makes Stone Eagle a special place has much to do with the location, sitting up there on the edge of the steep young Santa Rosa mountain range, a place so unnatural for human beings, with strange plants and animals designed for the extremely hot and dry conditions.  Management made the keen decision to merely augment and nurture the existing plant life, rather than add non-native adornments.  It's so alien and beautiful there.

Chambers Bay is ranked in the top 20 of Golfweek's Modern list, whereas Stone Eagle has failed to crack the top 100 yet, though Stone Eagle appears set to enter Golfweek's top 50 Residential Developments.  The comparison between Chambers Bay and Stone Eagle says something about one's priorities when evaluating a golf course.  For three of us, the choice is easy.

[Tom Huckaby]

John:

That is exceedingly well-written and your points appear flawless to me.  Well done.  I have yet to play Chambers Bay (though I sure hope to some day) so I have no dog in this fight, so to speak... But you've sold me as to how very understandable it is that reasonable minds could prefer Stone Eagle.

It also does warm my heart, however, that you are not shy about expressing things that others here deried me for including in assessments of golf courses:  that is, the great parts of Stone Eagle that you describe as "the experience of spending the day", as well as views and other matters of aesthetics.  These things matter.  It remains mystifying to me that many want to disinclude such.

Tom H.

[RJ_Daley]

That is an interesting comparison John.  Since I've only seen - not played CB and never was at SE, I really can't make any judgement of what they both play like.  I'm left with pre-conceived bias.   Upfront, I'd rather walk in relative comfort than ride, in oven baking heat.  I remember back to when the GCA.com gang went to a KP there, and it didn't look too inviting from a comfort standpoint (which I personally would always take being cold and even wet than scorched)

I have no doubt that the Renaissance team did a good and proper job in producing great golf corridors, and blending the terrain to natural surroundings.  I'm sure that the aesthetic experience is superior.  Yet, I can't imagine that the golf, strategy, and playability is so far superior at SE that it would sway me to want to ride in a cart and play through an oven blaster.  I realise that there are several months where the weather might be perfect at SE when it is cold and drizzly at CB.  

It would take a failed maintenence meld at CB to really get me thinking otherwise.  I would naturally gravitate to the greens presentation and surrounds of fescue and playing style at CB.  My recollection (of photos) of SE is that the greens surrounds are much more compact or tight as are the FWs.  I'm sure many will correct me if that is wrong, including TD.  

[Jordan Wall]

Is Matt from the Seattle area as well?

Cheers,
Jordan

[Richard Choi]

In the defense of Chambers Bay, even Matt agree tha it is Doak 8. I probably would put it at 8, 8.5 mostly due to the weakness of part 3's and ho-hum par 5's. So there wasn't THAT much difference between Matt and I.

You are just a stingy grader!

Once they make some of the changes they have planned, longer back tee on the right side for 17th, a new back tee for 12th, and several other improvements, it may well work its way back to a 9.

I will say Ballyneal is cleary head and shoulders above Chambers Bay, though on par 4's CB holds its own.

[Pete Lavallee]

Is Matt from the Seattle area as well?

Cheers,
Jordan

Jordan,

Matt is an infrequent contributor from the Denver area; I highly respect his opinion, as he is well travelled.

As usual John synthesizes the debate quite nicely. If we are only comparing empty golf courses at peak conditioning, the choice would indeed be quite close. But CB isn't ever empty and still needs time to mature. It is indeed obvious that the CB team did not put the time and attention to the native areas; unlike SE which melds seemlessly with its environment. I am puzzled by SE's lack of love; both from Golf Week and Ran's refusal to highlight the course here on GCA?

[Sean Leary]

Again, separating the "experience" from the "golf course"  is difficult. As a golf course, I think CB is quite a bit better. As an experience, I prefer Stone Eagle. Given the choice, I normally go for the experience.

I hate to say it but there is something about a private golf experience compared to a public one. Maybe that is why prefer BN to Pacific Dunes as well.....

Richard, please tell me no brush tees were used at Ballyneal...

[Steve_Lovett]

The arrival, clubhouse, shuttle to golf experience at Chambers Bay shocked me when I was there this summer.  Not in a good way.  Completely takes away from the experience.

Does anyone know why the clubhouse was positioned where it is relative to everything else and why the operational clumsiness was "built in" as it was?

[Sean Leary]

The other thing about Chambers is that it doesn't feel like a destination, the way that Bandon does.....

It will never compare to Bandon in that respect.

[jkinney]

" I am puzzled by SE's lack of love; both from Golf Week and Ran's refusal to highlight the course here on GCA? "


I've nearly had my head taken off on this website for opining that SE is the finest course ever built in the desert and that I enjoy being on its ground almost as much as that of NGLA. Why this vitriol against SE ?? I think it's because SE is beyond the ken of most critics. No course like it on ground like it has been built before SE. There is nothing to judge it against. It's not like comparing and contrasting
Sand Hills and Ballyneal, for instance. SE is in its own parallel universe. To me that universe is really cool.

[jkinney]

" I am puzzled by SE's lack of love; both from Golf Week and Ran's refusal to highlight the course here on GCA? "


I've nearly had my head taken off on this website for opining that SE is the finest course ever built in the desert and that I enjoy being on its ground almost as much as that of NGLA. Why this vitriol against SE ?? I think it's because SE is beyond the ken of most critics. No course like it on ground like it has been built before SE. There is nothing to judge it against. It's not like comparing and contrasting
Sand Hills and Ballyneal, for instance. SE is in its own parallel universe. To me that universe is really cool.

Apologies to Jordan Wall. The first paragraph above was from Pete Lavallee's post. The second paragraph is mine. I obviously screwed up the quote editing process.

[Lou_Duran]

I played CB last Wednesday for $75 (+$5 for a trolley) on a Chamber of Commerce type of day.  Despite trully atrocious greens in terms of conditioning, it is a fantastic course with even better vistas.  I played the course at 7,000 yards and with 37 putts shot 80.  It is "easy" in that the fairways and greens are very generous.  With faster green speeds, perhaps they would provide a greater challenge.

I did not find the course as repetitive as some have suggested, which is not the case with Stone Eagle (where the par 3s played similarly downhill with only a club or so difference, and many of the drives looked the same).  From my perspective, the ratings are about right.

As an update, the fairways at CB are about to get much narrower, perhaps to only 20 to 25 yards wide in spots.  Apparently the USGA thinks they need to toughen up the course and several of them had been flagged for new cutting lines.   A number of bunkers will be several yards in the new rough.

[PThomas]

so the condition of the greens at CB continue to have major probles, apparently, why is that?

is the course getting a lot of play??

and re SE, one thing i liked about the course is that is relaly made you think about where to hit your tee ball and whether or not to hit driver

my round there was definitely not enough to figure those things out

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wow. I can recall many, many discussions on this golf architecture forum lambasting anyone who dared think of the experience as part of the architectural discussion.  Ditto for conditioning. 

IF (and I say if) there is a "groupthink" on this site it has tended away from "experience" type clubs, generally thinking that they signify generally inferior architecture.  Some have even postulated that SE is not the best Doak course out there, possibly because it was a commission where he had to tone it down for the presumably aging membership and their games, rather than design a totally perfect test of golf - which had to be the major objective of CB.  I am quite sure that there are a dozen Fazio or RTJII courses in Palm Desert area that equal the Stone Eagle "experience".  Nearby BigHorn has to be an example, no? 

So, its interesting to see "the experience" to justify a - surprise! - Doak course be elevated on this site over one of a non favord gca....I am not bashing TD!  I just find the juxtaposition of some of these ideas intersesting in the context of this website, even knowing they come from different people and there cannot be a total groupthink among 1500 of us.

Somehow, I would favor the "experience" of playing a US Open course over almost anything in Palm Springs.  And, I can't believe the ocean (and train!) views of CB aren't superior to the mountain views of SE, even though both are dramatic.

I would agree that a bad entry sequence (and having proposed on the project, I do know that you have to get down that hill) might be considered both part of the architecture and the experience to almost equal degrees. 

[Sean Leary]

I played CB last Wednesday for $75 (+$5 for a trolley) on a Chamber of Commerce type of day.  Despite trully atrocious greens in terms of conditioning, it is a fantastic course with even better vistas.  I played the course at 7,000 yards and with 37 putts shot 80.  It is "easy" in that the fairways and greens are very generous.  With faster green speeds, perhaps they would provide a greater challenge.

I did not find the course as repetitive as some have suggested, which is not the case with Stone Eagle (where the par 3s played similarly downhill with only a club or so difference, and many of the drives looked the same).  From my perspective, the ratings are about right.

As an update, the fairways at CB are about to get much narrower, perhaps to only 20 to 25 yards wide in spots.  Apparently the USGA thinks they need to toughen up the course and several of them had been flagged for new cutting lines.   A number of bunkers will be several yards in the new rough.

Lou,

Sorry I missed you when you were here.   I have heard the greens are almost unplayable at time as well. The weather has been good, so that is not the reason.

[PThomas]

Jeff, just to be clear:  my comment on conditioning was made because from what i've read the greens at CB have been below even average...believe me, i am certainly not one who expects perfect conditioning - for one, too much of that costs too much money and uses too much water, etc. - but it seems as if the greens at CB are not very good at all

if people tell me I am way off base i will gladly retract my thoughts

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Jeff, 5 years ago the experience was not to be a factor, time and newbies have changed on this site a bit.

I have played both courses, but CB only once.  Some thoughts:
I think CB requires a wider variety of shots.  I like a par 3's more at CB.  The par 5's are a bit redundant and boring at CB, and that may be SE's one advantage.  I have no doubt customers are in a panic over the greens, but don't fescue greens take time?  Also the native will come in by 2010 nicely in my layman's opinion.  As for the Open, I have no doubt the USGA will be in a panic mode within a couple of years and after the Amateur will make many changes.  I thought CB is at present a bit too easy for their tastes.

I think there is a hotel to be built above and thus it will house a pro shop and full restaurant, so the current set-up is temporary.
For ambience, they are both pretty good aren't they?

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff,

I've always given my opinion without regard to the herd's expectations.  That, playing a sizable sampling of courses, and studying the gca and agronomy literature is what I thought made me a competent rater.  Others have different ideas.  I don't know how one can separate the surroundings or "experience" as you noted from the evaluation, though things like the clubhouse, food, practice facilities are entirely easy to exclude.  Both CB and SE have superior "looks".  I just found CB to be a considerably better course.

Sean,

Me too, but I know people are busy.  I had the good fortune of joining a single and a twosome at CB and we had a great time on the course and an excellent dinner afterwards at the club (the London Broil is highly recomended).  As happens occasionally, the single has a very strong contact at Sand Hills and he invited me to join him for a few days next year.  I've been wanting to get back there so I am already making plans.

I also had the privilige of playing with Bryon Vincent at Tacoma Golf and CC.  What an outstanding young man and delightful golf course.  Unfortunately, the trees and my ailing body (played golf seven days in a row) brought the worst in me and I barelly broke 90.  Great fun nonetheless.

As to the condition of the greens at CB, the explanation remains that the grass is very young and will continue to improve.  I've seen temporary greens that were better, and all had very thin spots in places.  They putted much better than they looked.

The tee sheet that day was totally full and the starter told me that they run at around 90% of capacity.  As I recall, the tee times were 11 minutes or so apart, and they started you on the clock.   We played in a little over 4.5 hours while waiting on nearly every hole on the back nine.  If the course is getting that much play, I don't know how the greens will get to an acceptable condition.   
   

[Garland Bayley]

I think John's original post clearly states which is the better golf course. Quoting from it and accentuating the positives.

Chambers Bay

• Chambers Bay is a great layout, with a particularly fine set of fours.
• The hole sequences 5-6-7 and 14-15-16 are outstanding.
• The views of the Olympic Mountains across the Puget Sound are to die for.
• The regular procession of trains along the edge of the property is fabulous.

Stone Eagle

• Tom Doak uses three of the par 3s to get across ravines,
• virtually all of the par 4s and 5s work their way up and down the hillside.
• You arrive and are fitted with your own golf cart for the day,
• the intimate driving range
• the most beautiful bunkering ever witnessed on a driving range
• The final trip over the hill to the first tee is so beautiful
• The course is generally uncrowded, and rounds take less time.
• the course fit in with its surroundings ...
• playing conditions are second to none

[Mike Benham]

and re SE, one thing i liked about the course is that is relaly made you think about where to hit your tee ball and whether or not to hit driver

I seem to recall that you could swing the driver without remorse at SE ....

[Tom Huckaby]

My recollection jives with Mike's.

And I am far from a newbie but I am one of the ones Jeff refers to as being pilloried for daring to suggest that the experiential matters.  The one doing most of the pillorying was indeed Pat Mucci, so I expect him here soon to tear John K. a new one as he has done to me so many times.  But then again, we can't expect him here as he's too busy posting on the political thread while at the same time railing against those who post on OT threads as contributing to the ruination of the site.  Such hypocrisy must indeed keep one busy.

 

In any case, I continue to applaud John for his take here.  Give 1000 golfers the two experiences as described by John, at these two courses, and at least 925 will enoy their time more at Stone Eagle.  If that doesn't make it a better course, then one needs to change his definition of what a great golf course is.

Off my soap box,

Tom H.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Tom H.   how many times did you say you have played CB?

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom H.   how many times did you say you have played CB?

Lynn:  that would be exactly zero.  As I stated, I am basing it on John's descriptions.  My aim here isn't to ascertain which course here is better; my aim is to (a) pillory Pat Mucci and others who have lambasted me for daring to claim the experiential matters; and (b) to use the word pillory as many times as possible.

I believe I have succeeded in both aims.

In any case, CB v. SE, not my fight.

Experiential matters?  Definitely my fight.  And my gloves are back on.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not to continue to chastise this site, but there is also an undercurrent from time to time questioning all that is "standard" including, from memory, the idea that bent is a necessity for greens.  If RTJ tries fescue and golfers find it not superior to the more common bent, then its a vote for agronomic practices that most of us use, rather than experiementing with something that someone has forgotten the problems of (sorry about that baaaaad english)

Lynn,

Point taken for both you and Lou.  To be clear, I have seen both sites, but not both golf courses. I think the groupthink has always been that I shouldn't offer opinions on a course based just on pictures and pre construction visits!  Guily as charged in this case.

I am sure they are both great courses. I guess I am really surprised that anyone could make playing one or the other an "easy" choice.

[John Kirk]

OK, thanks for all the input, guys.  Now I'll augment the original post with further discussion of the two golf courses, the merits of which are pretty even in my mind.

1.  We'll start with a series of responses...

a.  Lou mentions the similar nature of Stone Eagle's par 3s.  One is severely downhill, two are downhill, and one is about flat.  Chambers Bay has four par 3s.  One is severely downhill, two are downhill, and one is about flat.  The severly downhill par 3 on each course is a candidate for the weakest hole on the course.  Seems they share the same weaknesses in this regard.  Chambers Bay's par 3s have big broad slopes to contend with around the greens.  Stone Eagle has lots of little movement.

b.  Jeff B. says there must be other courses in the Palm Desert area which offer the same type of "experience" level.  I don't know, Jeff.  I never play anywhere else, except for one round at the Quarry, which is similar.  Bighorn is surrounded by houses.  Stone Eagle is real pretty; has to be the best looking course in the mountains.

c.  Driving the ball at Stone Eagle is great fun, a strength of the course.  It's pretty wide open, but the correct line off the tee is very important, so you tend to focus on where it's got to go.  I hit driver on every hole except 16 and usually 18.

d.  "5 years ago the experience was not to be a factor, time and newbies have changed on this site a bit."  I'll respond in my best Basketballese...."C'mon, man."

2.  Remember this course is designed by Tom Doak and his guys, who incorporate our favorite aspects of golf strategy into their designs.  Stone Eagle is really wide with big undulations in the fairways, sloped greens and deep, difficult bunkers.  Playing to one side of a fairway is preferable in all cases.  Ideally, you would want to have several holes where the proper side changed with pin placement, but that appears to be very difficult to incorporate at every course.  At Stone Eagle, there are a couple of holes where it makes a significant difference.

If Chambers Bay narrows some of its fairways to 25-30 yards, it loses the whole concept of playing angles.  If they overwater the fescue rough, it will be a bitch.  Dry fescue rough is heavenly; green fescue yields some of the worst lies ever.  You can't get it there from here.

There's great undulation in the fairways, and you have to know how to hit shots off awkward lies.  You also have to learn the best places to aim for.  Stone Eagle has a built in home course advantage.  Chambers Bay is far more subtle in the main playing areas, and yields a far higher percentage of flattish lies.

Potentially, you could face a blind approach at Stone Eagle on holes 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18, if you hit your shot in the wrong place.  I probably face two blind approaches per round on average.  Chambers Bay offers blind approaches for mishit shots on a few holes as well.  I believe that blind shots should be encountered on occasion as a penalty for misdirected shots.

The greens at Stone Eagle are wild by some standards, but tame when compared to the broad steep slopes of most great classic courses.  The subtle internal contouring add to the difficulty and enjoyment.  Chambers Bay's greens have more tilt on average, and a little less in terms of internal movement.  Once they speed up Chambers Bay's greens to 9-10 feet they will come alive and be great.  Both courses have excellent greenside action.

Stone Eagle's par 5s are really nice, and probably better.  One thing to notice about Chambers Bay's par 5s is that each one exacts a considerable penalty for the player who attempts to reach the green but misses. 

So let's talk about the par 4s for a bit.  Chambers Bay has great par 4s.  I think hole #5 proves you if you build a good lon's mouth green complex, you can put the tee anywhere and it will be a great hole.  Hole #16 is unique and fabulous.  The Narrows hole #12 is great fun, really a long par 3 since the layup option is narrow.  All of them are great.  If I had to choose a couple par 4s at Chambers Bay which were ordinary, I'd say #2 and #11.

Stone Eagle's par 4s are all fun to play, and the fact that they tend move north and south up and down the mountain only makes a little bit of difference, since wind is generally not a big factor there.  (Despite being near the water, Chambers Bay is also not a very windy place.)  In general, the greatest weakness is length, though uphill par 4s play long for most players.  In my opinion, the best par 4s are #2, #4, #6, #9, and #18.  #9 from the back tee behind the 8th green is to die for.

I've got to move on for now.  Each fall my thoughts begin to turn to Stone Eagle, and the home course bias is in play here.  But I just get dreamy about it when the days get shorter, and can't wait to get down there.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()