Chambers Bay vs. Stone Eagle - An Easy Choice

[Matthew Schulte]

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.

Richard:

For starters, I enjoyed meeting you and wished we could have talked longer.

Not to split hairs but I believe I called Chambers a 7.5.  I know, I know, get off the fence right?  John is quite right in saying that it is my opinion that given all of the hyperbole on this site I believe others think more highly of it than I do.  Mind you a 7.5 is still a very, very high rating!  Bottom line for me is that while it has some special par 4s, I don't believe I will be making a "special" trip back to see it again which I guess is the definition of an 8.  I simply did not have that burning desire to return to the first tee for a replay upon completing my one and only round there.  Frankly, 5+ hours later, I was quite ready to be done. 

My criticisms are similar to those already expressed by others: redundant par 5s, all drop shot par 3s, and at times a clumsy routing, and I was disappointed by the quality of some of the finish work.  Given the fact that the course was essentially built on a blank canvas it is difficult to believe that the green to tee walks could not have been made shorter. 

That said, if Chambers were in my hometown, I suspect I would be a very frequent visitor!

[Garland Bayley]

John may disagree with me, but I still read John's discriptions as favoring CB as a golf course. I can understand the experience preference, but I read a description of greater variety at CB over SE with CB winning the par 4s and SE winning the par 5s. Unfortunatly for SE, golf courses have more par 4s than par 5s. The caveat is that I have not seen SE.

[Garland Bayley]

...Given the fact that the course was essentially built on a blank canvas it is difficult to believe that the green to tee walks could not have been made shorter. 
...

Isn't that dependent on the tees you play? I found the green to tee walks to be far better then most "modern" courses.

[Rob Rigg]

What does "fitted with your own cart" mean? 

Hopefully that question is not as stupid as it probably is.

I have not seen either course, but both look spectacular from their web sites.

Based on the reviews of Chambers, I worry that the pros are going to shoot the lights out there during the Open. It does not seem like a very difficult course with the number of "back stops" and all the open space. Links courses, obviously, tend to play tough because of the wind - so I don't really understand why they built a links course in a relatively windless area?

Won't it completely defeat the purpose of building a links course and hosting a Championship there if the USGA narrow the fairways to make it more difficult?

Sorry for the tangent.

[Matthew Schulte]

...Given the fact that the course was essentially built on a blank canvas it is difficult to believe that the green to tee walks could not have been made shorter. 
...

Isn't that dependent on the tees you play? I found the green to tee walks to be far better then most "modern" courses.

Garland:

I agree that relative to most modern courses, which are often forced to work around housing considerations, that most of the green to tee walks at Chambers are, as you say, very short.  However, I just found the walks between holes 3-4, 9-10, 14-15 surprisingly long and potentially avoidable given the freedom I assume was given to the architect.  Those walks would be much more understandable if the routing was forced to work around existing features.

[Andy Troeger]

I haven't played Stone Eagle so I can't do any kind of comparison. It looks like a course I'd like very much since I like mountain desert type layouts and it sounds very impressive in terms of design features as well.

But for those talking about experience (which IMO is an awful way to evaluate a golf course because it might be totally different the next day)...if Stone Eagle can match or beat playing Chambers Bay as the first twosome off on a glorious summer morning, then that must be special indeed. I can see how playing Chambers mid-afternoon in a five plus hour round might be a bit tedious, but that's something all public courses have to deal with.

Chambers will benefit from having the greens improve, they were playable but very slow when I was there. Folks didn't seem to mind slow greens at Ballyneal for the most part though from what I understand before they were able to speed them up a bit more.

[Jim Franklin]

Paul -

Play the course before you start bashing the greens. It is a new course with new greens. In my experience, it takes a few years for greens to really get good. I would say CB's greens were similar to Ballyneal's in their early stages. They will improve just as BN's have.

I agree with John that the experience at Stone Eagle is fantastic. I prefer CB to SE as a golf course though. Fortunately, we were first off and never had to wait. The bus ride down to the course in no way affected my opinion of the course.

[Tom Huckaby]

Andy/Jim:

I'd agree that one can get carried away and put TOO much weight on the experiential, as Andy is very correct it can differ from day to day.  And things that occur off the golf course should never matter either.  HOWEVER - my beef remains against those that say NONE of the experiential matters AT ALL.  And by that I mean, those that say things like views and the very difficult to define but oh so easy to experience "feel" can never matter at all in an evaluation of a golf course.

My take has always been that if you feel it and experience it while playing a course, it matters. It's not the be all and end all, nor even close to the most important part of an evaluation - far from it.  But to say it cannot matter AT ALL, well that's what I find very wrong.  Why eliminate that which one feels while playing a course?  And if you do, just what are you evaluating and are you really qualified to make such an evaluation?

I've made this argument countless times in here.  Few ever buy it, as most in here want to evaluate golf course "design" though they tend to know next to nothing about what goes into the effecting of said design.  It makes little sense to me.

I just expect that you two get it.

My purpose in posting here was to tweak Mucci but also since I saw the astute John Kirk valuing things he felt as well as what the rest of you would consider golf coure "design", well it was time to pounce, once again.

But back to these two courses.  My tangent remains silly.

TH

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Who can provide the answer as to why the greens at Chambers continue to be questioned.  For the record, it isn't the speed at issue, I think it is the smoothness and the consistency that cause the problem.

Is it the traffic?  The construction? The materials used?  Was fescue the wrong choice in this environment?  How long can it go before Chambers falls in the eye of rating panels and travelling tourists?  

[John Kirk]

Does anybody really believe that the golf course can be evaluated separately from its surroundings?



Natural beauty matters.  It augments the experience.  I can talk a good game evaluating architecture, but I enjoy the "walk in the park" most of all.

I just don't think anybody makes a big fuss about this golf hole if it's built in the middle of a corn field.  Still, this perspective shows the versatility of this short par 3.

Ever noticed how many courses Tom Doak builds in barely habitable locations?  Either too windy, too cold in the winter, or too hot in the summer.

[Tom Huckaby]

John:

Pat Mucci believes it, rather strongly.

It takes all kinds, huh?

TH

[Garland Bayley]

Does anybody really believe that the golf course can be evaluated separately from its surroundings?
...

I believe it can, but that evaluation does not make up the total evaluation. Although I am not a Golf Digest Rater, nor do I play one on TV, it is my understanding that they put the course, the surroundings, and the experience in separate categories so they to must think they can be evaluated somewhat seperately.

As for the CB, SE evaluation, I cannot imagine a surroundings that can best the surroundings of CB in any significant way. CB is set in a city, but effectively divorced from the city by being set in the pit of the former mine. And as your first post indicated, the views of the sound, the islands, and the Olympics are to die for.

As a comparison to your picture above, hole number 9 at CB may not be a great par 3 in it's evaluation as a golf hole, but its setting and surroundings do elevate it in its total evaluation. Then also there is that extended time between the stroke and the result that enhances the fun.

[John Kirk]

Ooooo, I'll take the coveted 35th response.  Top of the page.

My wife said after playing Chambers Bay, "When you look out a the Sound, it's great.  When you look back the other way, it looks like you're playing golf in gravel pit."  Chambers Bay's appearance is unnatural and will always be that way.  The piles of till that define the holes are unnaturally large and steep, and the course's appearance will always suffer as a consequence.  Stone Eagle, overall, is the better looking venue.

In terms of strict golf analysis, Chambers Bay has fine width and playing angles.  The par 4s have grand variety, among the best.  There is some repetition.  Holes 4-5 are similar to holes 13-14.  The greens are very nice, though it is really hard to tell how they will play until the greens speed up to 9 feet.  Chambers Bay's fescue fairways roll out beautifully, and to me, that is very important.

Chambers Bay's greenside sideboards and backboards are large and, in general, devoid of nuance.  You miss on the high side and it rolls down onto the green every time.  In general, I think Renaissance Golf builds less regular sideboards a bit smaller with greater variation in result.

Question for everybody, since part of this exercise is to accumulate knowledge and opinions.  Can you think of instances a Chambers Bay where different pin locations yield a different best playing angle into greens?

On the humorous side, has anyone seen a bigger false front than Chambers Bay #7?   Wow!  Sean Leary hit a shot over the big mound that looked pretty good.  We got all the way up to the green looking for his ball, then turned around and saw a ball 50 yards short.  You've got to hit plenty of club on #7.   If you miss short at Sand Hills #1 on a dry day, a similar fate awaits.

Last comment:  I'll just reiterate that Stone Eagle does a fine job testing the player's ability to play awkward lies, trust the blind approach after a misdirected drive, and judge uphill and downhill approaches.  It's real good at that.  It does not regularly test (at least for me) the ability to run a long shot onto the green, where Chambers Bay has three holes (1, 5, and 14) where I see that as a real possibility for me.  Unfortunately, no par 5s at Chambers Bay fall into that category, and I would lay up on the par 5s every time.  You could do it on 8, but it's too long for me.  At Stone Eagle I try to run my second shot into the par 5 13th after a good drive, and sometimes try to roll it into 5, 14 and 18.

[Tom Huckaby]

Garland:

I don't play a Golf Digest Rater on TV - though I'd be damn good at it as I am one, and I am a fine actor.

And you have it wrong.  We do evaluate 9 different criteria; however while surroundings and the like can (and I believe do) effect 4 out of the 9, we do not really "put the course, the surroundings, and the experience in separate categories".

But that being said, oh I certainly do believe that a golf course CAN be evaluated separately from its surroundings; hell Pat Mucci does it routinely.

I just continue to ask why would one want to do that, and in the end, what is that evaluation worth?

As for CB v. SE, of course reasonable minds can and will differ.  But to make the evaluation stop at the border of the course... well... that to me seems very very weird.  And that is what I continue to question.

TH

ps - sorry John, as you see you have to be a lot quicker to get that 35th post. 

[Peter_Herreid]

Question for everybody, since part of this exercise is to accumulate knowledge and opinions.  Can you think of instances a Chambers Bay where different pin locations yield a different best playing angle into greens?

As a veteran of now 16 rounds at CB, the last two coming this past Monday I will take this one...

Because of the backboards and opposing steep false fronts/falloffs I would say it makes a great difference on #2 and #11 from which side of the fairway one approaches.  I also believe that #8 left pins (front, middle or back) can only be reliable approached from the right side (even the far lower right) fairway, and that #8 right pins can similarly only be reliable accessed from the high left fairway.  I believe that far and away the best entry on #6 is as tight to the right side fairway for middle and back pins.  Middle to back left pins on #13 are nearly impossible to get to from center-left fairway.

Granted it is often the backboard vs. opposite side fall-off or false front that creates these angles, and that that pattern may be somewhat repetitive, I do think that the effective fairway widths are not as great for preferred approaches as one might think...

However, none of this changes the fact that the greens, IMHO, are still pretty brutal.  The caddies on Monday were now claiming that they were stressed for the Ryan Moore Skins game event, but I think regular players there should not buy that explanation...They've been marginal for a while now---

As an aside, I played with a threesome who are very, very, very familiar with Ballyneal, and it was their opinion that the greens turf conditions now at CB are nearly identical to Ballyneal's at the same stage of evolution...But of course, YMMV...

[Peter_Herreid]

In addition, I noted that Lou mentioned the pink flags that are out to mark potential fairway narrowing boundaries...

If one accepts the theory that the USGA would likely never play the Open with fairways that wide (you may not agree, but it doesn't matter), how else would they gather information on how narrowed fairways would play other than to implement the process now in anticipation of the 2010 US AM?  While I feel that the proposed areas of narrowing are awkward at best, and will significantly alter the course for us rank amateurs in a bad way, the sense down there is that it needs to be experimented with a reasonable time before the US Am, so if they don't like what they've tried, it can grow back out again before then...

right now, the plan is to implement the narrowings sequentially over the winter, and then observe the play during some higher-level events next season, and then re-evaluate during next winter whether to finalize the changes for 2010, or try something else...

Fox example, the proposal for #18 is to separate the current combined fairway with #1 and bring 2-3" rough inside from the multi-bunker complex on the left in the current driving zone.  This will severely impact the hacker now, as many balls pulled away from the right-hand sandy waste run directly and unchecked into those two.  However, they really aren't in play now for the better players, and would be even less in play from the forward tee if the hole is played as a par-4 for the US AM, as is currently the plan...

I don't agree with that choice, but why not experiment with it now, during the comparatively slower play season?

For those that care, the choice to narrow #7 in so severely from the left I think is ill-advised as well, as it strips so many of the zig-zag playing options that different players can choose to negotiate that hole...

[Jim Franklin]

Andy/Jim:

I'd agree that one can get carried away and put TOO much weight on the experiential, as Andy is very correct it can differ from day to day.  And things that occur off the golf course should never matter either.  HOWEVER - my beef remains against those that say NONE of the experiential matters AT ALL.  And by that I mean, those that say things like views and the very difficult to define but oh so easy to experience "feel" can never matter at all in an evaluation of a golf course.

My take has always been that if you feel it and experience it while playing a course, it matters. It's not the be all and end all, nor even close to the most important part of an evaluation - far from it.  But to say it cannot matter AT ALL, well that's what I find very wrong.  Why eliminate that which one feels while playing a course?  And if you do, just what are you evaluating and are you really qualified to make such an evaluation?

I've made this argument countless times in here.  Few ever buy it, as most in here want to evaluate golf course "design" though they tend to know next to nothing about what goes into the effecting of said design.  It makes little sense to me.

I just expect that you two get it.

My purpose in posting here was to tweak Mucci but also since I saw the astute John Kirk valuing things he felt as well as what the rest of you would consider golf coure "design", well it was time to pounce, once again.

But back to these two courses.  My tangent remains silly.

TH

We are in agreement...again.

[jkinney]

Does anybody really believe that the golf course can be evaluated separately from its surroundings?



Natural beauty matters.  It augments the experience.  I can talk a good game evaluating architecture, but I enjoy the "walk in the park" most of all.

I just don't think anybody makes a big fuss about this golf hole if it's built in the middle of a corn field.  Still, this perspective shows the versatility of this short par 3.

Ever noticed how many courses Tom Doak builds in barely habitable locations?  Either too windy, too cold in the winter, or too hot in the summer.

Dead on right, John. Architects wax eloquently about the great pieces of ground they've been privileged to work on largely because of natural beauty, not because they're converted landfills (for instance).

[Tom Huckaby]

To take this further, at least one architect has confirmed that getting the most out of the views available is definitely part of what goes into the design process.  So even if one does want to limit his assessments to "design", views still do matter.

So do any of you really believe Mucci has any leg to stand on here?  That views do not matter AT ALL?

One caveat:  he tried to weasel out of it before by saying he believes INTERNAL course views matter, but EXTERNAL still do not.  That is, in his warped world, there's a large wall around the boundaries of every golf course.  No one buys that either, do you?

TH

ps - not sure how many ways I can insult my friend Pat before he takes this bait again.   His responses are typically epic. 

[Pete Lavallee]

Tom,

From my seat here in SD, it appears Pat has given up contributing to architectural threads; I haven't seen a post from him in weeks. Please don't tell me he's gone OT! 

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

From my seat here in SD, it appears Pat has given up contributing to architectural threads; I haven't seen a post from him in weeks. Please don't tell me he's gone OT! 

Pete:

Sorry to have to break the news... but check out the mega-page political thread.  I also refer you to page one (reply 20) of this thread in which I call Pat a hypocrite.

 

[Pete Lavallee]

Pete:

Sorry to have to break the news... but check out the mega-page political thread.  I also refer you to page one (reply 20) of this thread in which I call Pat a hypocrite.

 

 

[Garland Bayley]

...That is, in his warped world, there's a large wall around the boundaries of every golf course.  No one buys that either, do you?
...

Tom, you need to understand that for some people there is a virtual wall around the course. Notice that John Kirk mentions his wife's comments on the surrounds at Chambers Bay. I have to wonder if John has the same experience I do. We both played college basketball. For me there was a virtual wall around the boundaries of the court. It did not matter to me that there were thousands of screaming fans outside that wall, I simply had no awareness of them. Im my case, it was so focused that if my coach wanted to get information to me he had to call over one of the other players and have him deliver the message to me, because he could not get my attention. Given Pat's competitive skills and proven focus under pressure, he may very well not have any awareness of his surrounds when playing a course.

About the only time I notice the surrounds on a golf course is when I am forced to wait.

[Tom Huckaby]

Garland:

I certainly do understand that.  Hell I've played enough competitive golf to put walls around the course.

But is that the best way to evaluate golf courses - as a competitive player sees them?

I sure as hell don't think so.  The moment competition ends, the walls come down.  For me that's 95% of my golf.  I'd have to say it's the same or more for 95% or more golfers - wouldn't you?

TH

[Garland Bayley]

Tom,

Glad to see you just admitted that Pat is right for 5% of all golfers.