[Andy Troeger]

Ross,
Lets be a little more realistic--a good player (not me) can make birdie from more than a 15 yard portion in these fairways. If there's a fierce wind there aren't going to be that many birdies out there anywhere and if there's not then a good player can make birdie from just about anywhere in the fairway unless the pins are made difficult (and that can be done anywhere). The thing that makes these courses fun, strategic, and interesting is that from the poor angles the player has to challenge the green-side hazards to make birdies. That's good design, but its also not ONLY found on links. That's why a place like Muirfield Village ranks high on my list as well.

All,
Yes--its more fun to be able to play from wide fairways! Jim has seen me play and I still can't hit more than half the fairways at 80 yards so its great for me to play that kind of course. I've seen just about every recovery option there is out of rough, trees, gunch, hay, etc.  It's a pretty basic point that a poor angle from the fairway is a lot easier shot than (a poor angle usually) out of rough, trees, etc. I love Chambers Bay, its one of the top ten courses I've played, but if those fairways stay at its current width for the US Open (which they probably won't) I think there will be low numbers to be found out there.

[Ben Sims]

Niall,

With respect to Kingsbarns, what you speak of is the reason I deferred to the courses in the US as the leaders of the genre.  I can think of just a half dozen or so "new links" overseas that I would put with the 15 or so that are making an large impact here in the states.

It goes without saying that genesis of the movement lies in the courses designed by C&C and Renaissance.  Others are making courses that are starting to impact the genre as much as the earlier efforts.  Gil Hanse, Chris Brands, Dan Hixon, Graham Marsh, Mike Nuzzo are but a few of the emerging contenders in "new links" design.  

I think the underlying crux of this argument stems from my belief that there are two types of golfers.  Score golfer and fun golfers.  It seems to me that the score golfers defend penal golf courses because of their ability to protect par and exact a tough task for them.  Fun golfers defend strategic links designs because they allow for errors--what some call options--and also allow for creativity.  Score golfers are the first to bash strategic links golf courses for their ease of play without referencing playing conditions and "rub of the green".  Fun golfers are the first to bash penal golf courses because they exact punishment and are option--or error--limited.

Pick your poison.  I personally love the "new links" style and have started a quest to study them as much as possible.  Some think they are just a good excuse for hackers to enjoy a golf course.

[Wyatt Halliday]

I've played Ballyneal, Chambers Bay, and Rustic Canyon and never once remember being the fairway and being particularly concerned about a shot.

Andy,

I must apologize. I had no idea that you held the course record at Ballyneal. What was the number and does it still stand?

Wyatt

[Ross Tuddenham]

The good player also makes many birdies out of the rough, so if that is the case then what’s the point of the rough?  The only way to stop that would be to have knee length rough a yard from the already narrow fairway. 

I think you are over estimating the difficulty of the rough compared with the fairway. 

[Kalen Braley]

I think Andy is making some very good points here that I would like to 2nd.

1)  I too would much rather have a "lesser" angle to the hole with a fairway lie over any other angle in a poor lie like rough, trees, nasty bunkers, etc.  And just because an angle is lesser does not make it bad....its like having a pasta dinner or steak dinner, neither is bad but most would clearly have a preference of one over another.

2)  These courses do have a lot of width, and the reality is they do make it easier for everyone...but there is nothing wrong with that.  For a high capper like me, wider fairways will mean less recovery shots, which will mean better scores.  When i played Ballyneal, I had one of my best rounds in the last couple of years.  Does that mean I think the course is a pushover?  Certainly not,  but no doubt the course was a lot of fun because it was playable for someone like me who is inconsistent with my shot making.

3)  As much as we are in denial on GCA.com, for great players, most angles really just don't matter because when they have wedge in thier hand their can fire at any pin they want to regardless of where they are. We see these guys do it on brutally tough course setups week in and out.  Its not a bad thing, its just that these guys have insanely good golf skills and the course or its membership shouldn't take it personal because the course still plays plenty challenging for everyone else.

Furthermore most players aren't trying to make birdie on every hole.  Given that the average handicap of players is somewhere in the mid to high teens, most golfers are usually just trying to make a par, and are usually pleased with it.  Sure we have some good players here on GCA.com, but the average joe on the course is closer to my skill set, where pars are usually the goal with the occasional short 4 or 5 where one is thinking birdie.

[Jim Franklin]

I've played Ballyneal, Chambers Bay, and Rustic Canyon and never once remember being the fairway and being particularly concerned about a shot.

Andy,

I must apologize. I had no idea that you held the course record at Ballyneal. What was the number and does it still stand?

Wyatt

Wyatt -

Out of curiosity, what are you saying? Because Andy did not feel intimidated by being on the wrong side of the fairway in no way means he shot the course record. I understand what he was saying not that I agree with him.

As Tom said, it is not about punishing the player with a wayward shot, but rewarding a player for a good shot.

[Garland Bayley]

Jason,

If we make it all fairway, and the players are equal in distance, and short game, will not the most accurate driver win? You statement that 1/3 of the game is eliminated is not only false, but entirely illogical.

[Andy Troeger]

I've played Ballyneal, Chambers Bay, and Rustic Canyon and never once remember being the fairway and being particularly concerned about a shot.

Andy,

I must apologize. I had no idea that you held the course record at Ballyneal. What was the number and does it still stand?

Wyatt

Wyatt,
My aren't we sensitive about Ballyneal. I mentioned two other courses in that sentence you lifted--why not mention those? If you really want to know, my score at Ballyneal was chronicled (much more than I would like) in previous threads. I'm sure its not that hard to find.

The difference isn't when a player of my caliber (5-9 hcp) is on their game. I'm not gong to go particularly low. Its when I play poorly--at Chambers I hit the ball everywhere and shot about 85. If I played awful at Prairie Dunes I'd be lucky to break 100. Does that alone make one better than the other?

Ross,
I suppose that depends on the length of the rough!

[Garland Bayley]

...but the average joe on the course is closer to my skill set, where pars are usually the goal with the occasional short 4 or 5 where one is thinking birdie.

Correction Kalen. The average Joe is looking for par 3s to birdie. That's because he have fewer shots to mess up before putting.

[Wyatt Halliday]

I think the underlying crux of this argument stems from my belief that there are two types of golfers.  Score golfer and fun golfers.  It seems to me that the score golfers defend penal golf courses because of their ability to protect par and exact a tough task for them.  Fun golfers defend strategic links designs because they allow for errors--what some call options--and also allow for creativity.  Score golfers are the first to bash strategic links golf courses for their ease of play without referencing playing conditions and "rub of the green".  Fun golfers are the first to bash penal golf courses because they exact punishment and are option--or error--limited.

Ben,

I get where you are going with this. I'm sure there are several people who feel that a course's merits should be judged on how they test the best in the world, or high level amateur players. The greatest thing about width and short grass is that it encourages the player to never give up on the hole, which in my opinion is the very definition of match play competition. It's a common thread that the greatest courses in the world share. Take a course like Spyglass for instance. I consider Spyglass to be among the greates five hole courses I've ever seen. Because of the scale and width of these holes, the remaining thirteen feel even more constricting. For me, it becomes punishing to the point of almost wanting to give up. I see the appeal for some people, I'm just not one of them. I still think that short grass is the greatest hazard for the better player, just ask Kenny Perry.

Andy,

I meant no offense. I thought that you would take it toungue-in-cheek and possibly get a chuckle from it. A failed attempt at humor lost in translation, not the first time it's happened here and I'm sure it won't be the last.

[Tim Pitner]

Richard,

I know you didn't want this thread to devolve into a discussion of one course vs another, but I have to ask:  can Chambers Bay really stand toe to toe with the likes of Pacific Dunes, Ballyneal and Sand Hills (we're talking potential Doak -scale10s here)?  I haven't played CB (or SH for that matter). 

[Richard Choi]

Hi Tim,

Good question, and it is something that I have thought about many times and have discussed it with many here.

This is where I stand; Chambers Bay's collection of par 4's are as good as ANY golf course I know, that includes Pacific Dune and Ballyneal. The holes #1, #5, #6, #7, #10, #14, and #16 are world class holes that are as good as it gets. Where Chambers Bay fall in comparison are comparatively ho-hum par 5's and repetitive par 3's, especially the #9 which is just out of character with the rest of the course.

In my opinion, PD and Ballyneal are Doak 9's while Chamber Bay is Doak 8, even though Matt Schulte tried really hard to convince me that it is really Doak 7.

[Wyatt Halliday]

Rich,

I would be interested to hear about your back and forth with Matt on the rating. It seems to me that when the Doak Scale gets mentioned here the most difficult delineation is between the 7's and 8's. I think everyone has a concept of what makes a 9 or 10, and most have a solid grasp that the course must be solid to be a 7. I'm just wondering aloud what pushes the course to the 8 level in your mind. For what it's worth, I hope to join you for a round next time I'm in Seattle.

Wyatt

[Michael Dugger]

Richard,

I know you didn't want this thread to devolve into a discussion of one course vs another, but I have to ask:  can Chambers Bay really stand toe to toe with the likes of Pacific Dunes, Ballyneal and Sand Hills (we're talking potential Doak -scale10s here)?  I haven't played CB (or SH for that matter).  

No....not even sniffing their tailpipes

I fail to see the strategy in a hole like #10 at Chambers Bay.  It gets a free pass because it's purdy.

[Garland Bayley]

CB is definitely an 8. It is THE best course in the region. It is worth traveling to see. As Richard notes it has several somethings special, and #9 is special no matter what you think about it as a golf hole and how it fits.

[Kalen Braley]

When you say region do you mean Washington State or the Pacific Northwest?  I know this is getting a bit specific, but if Bandon is apart of the same region, then most would claim from what I've read here that CB is not better than what is found there, specifically Pac Dunes.

[Ben Sims]

Here's a couple questions.

1) Where does Prairie Clubs two courses fit into this argument once it opens?  I haven't seen a lot of ink on here about it.  It seems like a cool idea for a club.

2) Where does Old Mac fit into this argument?

3) Rustic Canyon is in the title of this thread, in that vein, could Common Ground and Long Shadow be mentioned in this thread? Where do we draw the line on modern, open, strategic, linksy courses?

Just some thought provokers.  

[Kalen Braley]

1)  Just lurk longer, it gets plenty of ink.

2)  The course isn't even open yet..there would be something seriously wrong with this dicussion if it were included.

3)  Is Long Shadow even link-ish?  I didn't get that impression from the pictures I've seen....ditto for CommonGround

[Richard Choi]

Kalen, I would include Bandon Dunes in that discussion. Chambers Bay is just as good as Bandon Dunes and Bandon Trails in my opinion. No matter what Michael says the difference between Chambers Bay and Ballyneal or Pacific Dunes is pretty small. To say that it is not even close is very shortsighted in my opinion.

#10 is not only pretty (and DAMN is it pretty), but a very tricky short par 4. It's green is uphill with a very narrow opening that slants to the right side behind a giant mound. If the pin is in the back, you MUST hit a drive to the left to get a proper angle to the green. If the pin is in the front, the best play is to hit the drive to the right so that you can use the bump in the front of the green to feed your ball to the pin. The green is surrounded on both sides (back left and front right) with some of the most severe small bunkers on the course if you don't pull off your short approach.

There are plenty of great strategies in play with #10.

[Michael Dugger]

Will someone summarize the "argument" Richard is making here because I didn't quite grasp it?

Is it that there are a lot of great golf courses built in the past decade?

I would agree with that.  A bona fide second golden era.

[Kalen Braley]

Richard,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but just a few posts ago, you claimed Pacific is a 9 and Chambers is an 8....perhaps I just got the wrong impression of which one was the better course.     But perhaps you meant to say PD is 8.6 and CB is 8.4.

[Michael Dugger]

Richard,

I've noticed you've started to speak quite "matter of fact" lately.

Take it easy big fella, yours is just one opinion amongst 6 billion others.

Careful not to become Matt Ward Redux

[Ben Sims]

1)  Just lurk longer, it gets plenty of ink.

2)  The course isn't even open yet..there would be something seriously wrong with this dicussion if it were included.

3)  Is Long Shadow even link-ish?  I didn't get that impression from the pictures I've seen....ditto for CommonGround

2) When it does open Kalen.  I would like to hear where folks think it will sit in the modern links category

3) From what I know, they all share width, link-ish contours, and large greens.  So I would consider Common Ground as much of a links as Rustic Canyon in that respect.  I'll tell you about Long Shadow after this weekend.

[Garland Bayley]

When you say region do you mean Washington State or the Pacific Northwest?  I know this is getting a bit specific, but if Bandon is apart of the same region, then most would claim from what I've read here that CB is not better than what is found there, specifically Pac Dunes.

Bandon is 500 miles away.
Everyone here advises against trying to do both in a trip.
Now, you tell me.

[Michael Dugger]

The routing at Chambers Bay is not as sophisticated as Pacific.

The strategy of the golf holes is not that of those at Pacific.

The conditioning is not up to snuff with the Bandon courses.

Nor is the aura, the scenery, the vegetation, etc......that of the Bandon courses.

IMHO, all three of the Bandon course best CB, it's not a huge disparity, CB is sweet, but it's like saying Whistling Straits is "close" to Pacific.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()