[JNC Lyon]

Today, I drove from Colgate to the nearby Turning Stone Resort to play Kaluhyat Golf Club, a Robert Trent Jones, Jr. design that winds through Central New York marshland.  I did not, as the pros did yesterday, play lift, clean and cheat THROUGH THE GREEN, although the course was very wet because of week's stretch of rain that we have had in upstate New York. 

I walked and carried, although the course layout was geared towards cart golf.  The routing is of the out-and-back variety, and it was overall a very enjoyable experience.  Junior is not a hack when it comes to architecture.  The course was difficult from tee to green, but I suspect that this was unavoidable due to the wetlands that proliferated the course.  He built several holes that were very interesting from an architectural standpoint.  The third and fourth were both beautifully designed par fours that challenged the players to drive towards the flag off the tee.  This would only yield increasing difficulties, as the best plan of attack on both holes is to challenge the hazards that are adrift from the direct line of the flag.  The 12th was also a very impressive par four, where the player had to drive as close to the right side as possible without straying too far to the right so as to be blocked by two lone trees.  The green site was very well done.  The greenside bunkers were lined with fescue and blended perfectly into the field that surrounded the green.  Trent Jones built a few interesting greensites throughout the course, including the shelf green at the par five 11th, the rippling green at the par three 15th, and a wild green benched into a hillside at the par three 17th.

Yet throughout the course, I could help but feel that the architecture was at odds with the surroundings.  With a few exceptions (such as 12th hole) the bunkering was heavily sculptured and totally unnatural.  He made no attempt to blend the bunkering into the surrounding landscape.  The site demanded a course that was rugged in appearance, but the overall look of the course was cosmetic and artificial.  Nearly every green possessed containment mounding of some kind, which was clearly manmade and served no purpose other than framing.   

My question is, does the architecture of Trent Jones, Jr. always involve this harsh juxtaposition of golf course architecture?  Do his courses always appear as if they are trying to overtake the setting as Kaluhyat does?  My conclusion from this one layout would be that Junior understands strategy and decision-making. However, he either wants his courses to appear manmade or does not care about clash between manmade and natural features.

[Tim Gavrich]

From my recollection of Jr.'s course at Sugarloaf in Maine, it didn't seem to fight the setting too hard.  The Carrabassett River comes into play a few times on the back nine, but not artificially so, I'd say.  It's a mountain course, but I don't feel as though the holes are as imposing on the terrain as at Kaluhyat.

[Jay Flemma]

Jones was ordered to give them a major championship venue.  They demanded a course that wold be a PGA tour stop at minimum, a US OPen or PGA championship venue if possible.  

He sometimes suffers from the same problem his dad had...he had to give the client what they asked for.

When left to his own devices and told, to just design a great course, look what he came up with...chambers bay...and an Open!

I did an interview with RTJ2 last year...you'd be surprised how much he sounds like a GCA.com member!

http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/robert_trent_jones_jr_interview

[JNC Lyon]

Jay,

I understand that Jones is trying to give the client what he wants.  Here is the problem: Kaluhyat is could not be a tour venue.  There is very little room for spectators around the greens or tees.  Most of the fairways are very wide and transition directly into thick woodlands or hazard.  The course would be very unsuitable for spectator travel across the course or split-tee starting times.  Much of the bunkering is designed more for framing and ornamentation than challenge.

Therefore, you have a golf course that is designed for the better golfer that will be played almost exclusively by resort golfers.  This is almost exactly the opposite of what the client demands.  I missed three fairways, two of which led to lost balls.  I can't imagine even finishing my round if I was  spraying it a bit with the driver.

All of that being said, even if Jones wanted to give them a tour venue, this does not require him to make the course artificial.  This assumes that all architectural principles and any idea of golf as a game to be enjoyed in harmony with nature are thrown out the window in the name of "tour readiness."  To me, that is no excuse for compromising the natural appearance of the golf course.  TPC of Boston is an example of a tour venue that is at peace with its surrounds.

How do you believe Kaluhyat would have different and/or better if Trent Jones had been left to his own devices?

[Jay Flemma]

Jay,

I understand that Jones is trying to give the client what he wants.  Here is the problem: Kaluhyat is could not be a tour venue.  There is very little room for spectators around the greens or tees.  Most of the fairways are very wide and transition directly into thick woodlands or hazard.  The course would be very unsuitable for spectator travel across the course or split-tee starting times.  Much of the bunkering is designed more for framing and ornamentation than challenge.

Therefore, you have a golf course that is designed for the better golfer that will be played almost exclusively by resort golfers.  This is almost exactly the opposite of what the client demands.  I missed three fairways, two of which led to lost balls.  I can't imagine even finishing my round if I was  spraying it a bit with the driver.

All of that being said, even if Jones wanted to give them a tour venue, this does not require him to make the course artificial.  This assumes that all architectural principles and any idea of golf as a game to be enjoyed in harmony with nature are thrown out the window in the name of "tour readiness."  To me, that is no excuse for compromising the natural appearance of the golf course.  TPC of Boston is an example of a tour venue that is at peace with its surrounds.

How do you believe Kaluhyat would have different and/or better if Trent Jones had been left to his own devices?

1.  I agree with you it couldn't have been a tour venue, but TS thought harder is better.  That's what they wanted.  It's not his fault they don't know golf there. And believe me, those people there don't know anything when they go around saying that Atunyote is the "Augusta of the North" and "we're angling to host a major" and "we're every bit as good as Kiawah and Pinehurst" because they held the Club Pro Championship.

2.  I don't know exactly how Kaluhyut would better better if Trent had been left to his own devices...other than he wouldn't have made it as impossibly hard (that much he told me)...and that he built a completely different golf course at CB from an architectural design standpoint (ignore the natural setting for the moment).  I think the simple answer is that he told me he wouldn't have designed such a penal course except that's what they told him to do...center-line and hard...be careful what you wish for...

[Sean Leary]

When left to his own devices and told, to just design a great course, look what he came up with...chambers bay...and an Open!

Are you serious?

[Jay Flemma]

Yes...and so was Jones.  There was no mandate to build a major venue.  He just built a great course, and it got it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
 RTJ 11's own words from 2007, you can be the judge whether or not they had championship/tour golf on their minds when developing CB.
 
"While we do not conduct any events and do not want to speak for those who do, we firmly believe that Chambers Bay would be a supreme test for the World's top golfers.Here are few design elements that we tried to incorporate in order to be considered for such events:

1. Length....The golf course from the championship tees is 7,585 yards. That is hundreds of yards longer than most professional events. In addition, we have the ability to, and have already scouted potential back tees to further lengthen the golf course. Perhaps more important than the length is the flexible design of the tees which allows those who set up the events to move tees around from day to day.
2. Par...The golf course is extremely flexible as it relates to event setup. Those who conduct events could set the course up anywhere from a par 70 to a par 73 as desired. Examples of holes that could be changed from a par 5 to a par 4 if desired include 13 and 18. In addition, hole 12 could be a played as par 3..
3. Grass Types -- The same grass type was utilized throughout all of the playable areas (tees, fairways, greens) on the course. Therefore, if someone conducting an event wanted to alter the edge of the fairway (to narrow it) that could very easily be accomplished. On most golf courses, the fairway grass is different from that of the rough and changing the width takes years to accomplish.
4. Green design -- The green complexes were designed to encourage creative shotmaking. That means that players will benefit from using the ground contours as opposed to always hitting lob shots. We intentiaonally created bold saddles, ridges, rolls, hinges, false fronts, etc throughout the greens. That means that those who conduct events will be able to find numerous hole locations that will challenge players ability and creativity.
5. Strategic hazard placement -- During the design and construction process we spent a great deal of time creating the strategy for each hole. Many of the hazards found at Chambers Bay purposely do not come into play for a 18 handicapper, but would weigh heavily on the mind of a professional.

6. Use of fairways as hazards -- Much of the fun of links golf is that it is played "on the ground" -- where the player does not have control over their golf ball. So all of the little rolls and hillocks in the fairways and approaches to the greens may seem benign to the average golfer, yet cause indecision for top players. On more than one occasion, we decided to have an area around a green be maintained as fairway instead of a bunker. The reason is simple. Average players struggle from bunkers, while pros have no trouble from sand. Conversely, average players can often putt from fairway or chip onto a green. Pros however are forced to decide between wedges, putters, and woods for these delicate shots. And indecision leads to poor execution.

Hopefully that sheds some light on the features of the course that we hope will make Chambers Bay an attractive destination for professional and top amateur events.

[Sean Leary]

Jay,

I think you're wrong. The entire infrastructure there was bulit with having a tournament in mind. Its 7500 plus yards. All the electical work for scoreboards etc was laid underneath the course BEFORE it was built. Did they KNOW they would get an Open or a major tournament? No. Were they hoping that it might get one? For sure.

[Sean Leary]

Jim,

our posts crossed. That confirms what I thought and had been told.

[Jay Flemma]

The distances on the tees...the comments on the flexible grounds...have to do wth the new style of tees, the "ribbon tees."  Jones wanted to make them exceptionally long and in one line simply to do something different, a new expiriment.  To say that CB was trying to draw a major on purpose is misguided.

[JNC Lyon]

Is Trent Jones Jr. always concerned with building a championship-caliber course, even when there is very little chance of hosting one?  Chambers Bay may be a great course (I've never seen it so I don't know), and it may be deserving of a US Open, but the course's primary purpose will be to serve as a public, municipal golf course.  To me, the course does not serve the purpose very well when it costs well over 100 dollars to play one round.

So it seems that Trent Jones Jr.'s architecture is affected by a desire to host championships, and that this desire may affect the architecture independent of the owner's demands.  However, this does not seem to be a problem exclusive to RTJ Jr.  Even courses that are universally praised on GCA, such as Mike Young's Long Shadow, are built with ultra-championship tees that stretch holes and courses to prodigious differences.  Yet a course like Long Shadow does not allow this inherent desire for hosting a professional tournament to get in the way of making the course natural in appearance and construction.  Long Shadow is stark, rugged, and beautifully integrated with the rolling Georgia piedmont.

Thus, my question remains.  Why does Trent Jones insist on making a course artificial in appearance? He could build golf courses that are difficult and tournament-ready AND not at odds with their surrounds.  Surely the owners at Turning Stone did not demand that he build a golf course that appeared contrived by the hand of man?

[Jay Flemma]

Is Trent Jones Jr. always concerned with building a championship-caliber course, even when there is very little chance of hosting one?  Chambers Bay may be a great course (I've never seen it so I don't know), and it may be deserving of a US Open, but the course's primary purpose will be to serve as a public, municipal golf course.  To me, the course does not serve the purpose very well when it costs well over 100 dollars to play one round.

So it seems that Trent Jones Jr.'s architecture is affected by a desire to host championships, and that this desire may affect the architecture independent of the owner's demands.  

John I'm not sure that it necessarily follows that just because a course has a 100-150 price tag that it was designed with a tournament venue in mind.  I agre a muni should be a little less expensive.

what is CB $125ish?  Turning Stone is $275 for Atunyote and $150 or so for Kaluhyut and that price actually went down.

Also, the land at Tunring Stone is ugly, flattish farmland that doesn't drain well ordinarily (see Shenandoah which has been muddy bothn times I've played it).  Central New York doesn't have a great setting, so they had to fire up the bulldozers.  They didn't do that aqt CB anywhere near as much.  And yes, the mandate at Kal. was build us a major venue.

[Rob Rigg]

Jay,

I think you're wrong. The entire infrastructure there was bulit with having a tournament in mind. Its 7500 plus yards. All the electical work for scoreboards etc was laid underneath the course BEFORE it was built. Did they KNOW they would get an Open or a major tournament? No. Were they hoping that it might get one? For sure.

My understanding is that they also built in "foundations" for large grandstands into some of the mounds and along the 18th fairway.

With a site like that, how could you not be going after big tournaments to get your name out - it totally makes sense. The USGA has been looking for a venue in the NW that could hold a major, that was close to a big city, etc. etc. RTJ II can act surprised but c'mon, it was clearly in his plans from the beginning.

[Jay Flemma]

Well here is something interesting:  look at this from the CB website:

October 2008


Q:  It is difficult to imagine how the course will accommodate spectators for an event as large as a U.S. Open.  Was that need anticipated during the design phase?
Don Ryan, Summit, NJ

------------------
A: Don,

Thanks for the great question.  We knew from our first day on site that we wanted to create a course that would be capable of hosting a U.S. Open.  First that meant creating a golf course good enough to host the Championship.  At the same time, the course (and areas around the course) needed to be designed to accommodate the Championship.  The task of creating a U.S. Open venue is easier said than done, especially considering the fact that the most recent new course to ever host the U.S. Open was constructed in 1962.

How were we able to do it?  We were fortunate that the abandoned sand and gravel mine was large enough for us to route the course in such a way that provided wide corridors for golf.  We studied numerous other venues that had hosted major championships in our planning phase.  We contacted the USGA and received information on the dimensions and layouts of the spectator areas at other U.S. Opens.  Then we took that information and tried to incorporate those elements into the design of the course.  The golf course itself always came first, but we paid special attention to gallery circulation routes, areas with potential for event staging, areas that could be used as corporate tents or bleachers, etc."


Here are a few examples of features we designed into the course:
1. The practice facility (which is flattish) was created knowing that staging and corporate tents could occupy this space for a U.S. Open.
2. The fairways for most holes are extrawide for everyday play, but can be adjusted so the edges can be utilized as gallery circulation for an event.
3. The dunes right of the 18th hole have a flat pad on top of them that was specifically designed to accommodate corporate tents or bleachers.
4. The area south of the course (Central Meadow) was graded in such a way that the space would be usable for event staging.

Hope that shed some light on our process of designing the course to accommodate the game's great championship."  

Hmmm. that's a little different from what he told us all at Torrey last year.

OK...but does that necessarily detract from it being a great course?

[Sean Leary]

Hmmm. that's a little different from what he told us all at Torrey last year.

OK...but does that necessarily detract from it being a great course?

Nobody said anything of the sort. It just contradicts your original point.

[Tom_Doak]

Jay:

I believe that Mr. Jones not only intended to design Chambers Bay to host a major championship, but in fact he sold the county on that concept in order to land the job to begin with.  They had originally put out an RFP for a 27-hole project ... Jones told them they should limit it to 18 so they would have room to go for a US Open.

What is not clear is whether the USGA was in on it from the beginning, even before he was chosen to do the job.

[Mike Nuzzo]

The RTJII proposal's last page includes a slide with a U.S. Open reference - they were quite humble as they were guessing 2030 as the year.
It was also called Chamber's Creek at the time.
It was also their associate's first lead project.


As for the NY course - What does containment mounding have to do with a venue?
No matter what the client requests why would you surround greens with artificial mounding?
(unless they ask for artificial mounding)

[JNC Lyon]

The RTJII proposal's last page includes a slide with a U.S. Open reference - they were quite humble as they were guessing 2030 as the year.
It was also called Chamber's Creek at the time.
It was also their associate's first lead project.


As for the NY course - What does containment mounding have to do with a venue?
No matter what the client requests why would you surround greens with artificial mounding?
(unless they ask for artificial mounding)

This is my point exactly.  If Trent Jones and company were really interested in challenging tour players, they would provide a variety of green complexes that present difficult recovery shots.  I found the shot game shots around the greens to be very easy.

Ultimately, the course appeared very difficult and is intimidating for the weaker player.  There are hazards to carry off almost every tee.  However, these carries are nothing but an afterthought for the best players.  Furthermore, RTJ never used the wetlands as a diagonal hazard to present tee shot strategy.  The carries were simply penal to mis-hits.

All of this demonstrates that, even if Trent Jones were building for a tournament, it does not explain the flaws of the resulting golf course.

[Jay Flemma]

Like I said...Turning stone wanted a PENAL course...not a strategic one.

[Richard Choi]

Lyon, I think you need to read up a little more about Chambers Bay...

Is Trent Jones Jr. always concerned with building a championship-caliber course, even when there is very little chance of hosting one?  Chambers Bay may be a great course (I've never seen it so I don't know), and it may be deserving of a US Open, but the course's primary purpose will be to serve as a public, municipal golf course.  To me, the course does not serve the purpose very well when it costs well over 100 dollars to play one round.

The purpose of the course was to turn what was once an eyesore of a sand mine to something that could benefit Pierce County. Pretty much from the begining, hosting US Open was a priority. The county executive in charge, Ladenberg, was quite taken by Bethpage Black and its US Open event and really wanted to duplicate it. As long as the course can be profitable, and raises the profile of the county it is serving its purpose, whether or not it is cheaper for the general public is a secondary issue.

This is my point exactly.  If Trent Jones and company were really interested in challenging tour players, they would provide a variety of green complexes that present difficult recovery shots.  I found the shot game shots around the greens to be very easy.

I think this is quite shortsighted. What may be "very easy" shots around the green at 5 or 6 stimp, is going to be DIABOLICAL when it is running 11. The combination of wind, firm and fast conditions, real penal bunkers, and wild green contours running at fast speed will give tour players all they can handle and more.

[JNC Lyon]

Lyon, I think you need to read up a little more about Chambers Bay...

Is Trent Jones Jr. always concerned with building a championship-caliber course, even when there is very little chance of hosting one?  Chambers Bay may be a great course (I've never seen it so I don't know), and it may be deserving of a US Open, but the course's primary purpose will be to serve as a public, municipal golf course.  To me, the course does not serve the purpose very well when it costs well over 100 dollars to play one round.

The purpose of the course was to turn what was once an eyesore of a sand mine to something that could benefit Pierce County. Pretty much from the begining, hosting US Open was a priority. The county executive in charge, Ladenberg, was quite taken by Bethpage Black and its US Open event and really wanted to duplicate it. As long as the course can be profitable, and raises the profile of the county it is serving its purpose, whether or not it is cheaper for the general public is a secondary issue.

This is my point exactly.  If Trent Jones and company were really interested in challenging tour players, they would provide a variety of green complexes that present difficult recovery shots.  I found the shot game shots around the greens to be very easy.

I think this is quite shortsighted. What may be "very easy" shots around the green at 5 or 6 stimp, is going to be DIABOLICAL when it is running 11. The combination of wind, firm and fast conditions, real penal bunkers, and wild green contours running at fast speed will give tour players all they can handle and more.

I agree that I need to read up more about Chambers Bay.  I've never seen the golf course, and I really do not know much about the course.  I don't doubt that the site was transformed into something spectacular by the addition of the golf course.  the problem I have is that SOOO many architects these days are concerned with building "courses that will someday host a US Open."  Frankly, Chambers Bay is one exception that landed a US Open out of hundreds that will NEVER host a US Open.  This is a big problem in modern golf course architecture.

My second quote was about Turning Stone, not Chambers Bay.  The greens were at 10 the day I played.

Jay, I understand that Turning Stone wanted a penal golf course.  I guess in that sense RTJ2 was successful because Kaluhyat is penal (although the accurate driver has a relatively wide margin for error).  However, I still don't understand why a penal golf course has to equal an artificial golf course.  The setting at Kaluhyat exuded a great deal of natural beauty.  The swamps and surrounding forestry are tremendous, as are the wide open fields.  Jones was able to work well with this land a couple holes (the long par four 12th comes to mind).  However, he did not succeed on the vast majority of the holes.  As an architect, I would think RTJ2 would harmonize with the natural landscape rather than clashing with it.  Again, unless, there was a made from the Turning Stone owners to build an artificial golf course, there is no good explanation for this.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Now that we've had knowledgable posts from MN and TD that jive with RTJ 11's own words, it's pretty clear that Chambers Bay was built to attract a championship and that they had a US Open in mind.

It seems to me that someone had a pretty good idea that  'if you build it they (USGA/Tour) will come' before they expended the money for the project.   

Aren't there any existing courses capable of holding the Open in the NW?

[Sean Leary]

Now that we've had knowledgable posts from MN and TD that jive with RTJ 11's own words, it's pretty clear that Chambers Bay was built to attract a championship and that they had a US Open in mind.

It seems to me that someone had a pretty good idea that  'if you build it they (USGA/Tour) will come' before they expended the money for the project.   

Aren't there any existing courses capable of holding the Open in the NW?

Jim,

There really aren't....

[Jim_Kennedy]

JNC,
I've been spending a little time at R2T2's website, and following some links to his courses. It appears that he's got a wide spectrum of product, something for everyone.

Some of it looks pretty in-tune with its surroundings, some of it doesn't, like his venture with the Indians down south that doesn't show any real concern for the land, either from him or the tribe.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()