[Sean Leary]

As someone who spent a decade on the Kitsap Peninsula, Canterwood is the other Doak 0 with Port Ludlow.

Oh, come on, Michael you are being a bit harsh. Port Ludlow is AT LEAST a Doak 1...

The Trail 9 is clearly a 0.

The rest is  3-4ish.

[Sean Leary]

I agree with Sean, Kalen, and Mike's opinions on Tumble Creek, so I have nothing new to add.

However, golf holes do not come much prettier than this one...

That is one beautiful golf hole.

Sure is.

The pic makes it look much narrower, longer and more penal..

[Garland Bayley]

...
P.S.  Garland, Chambers Bay is a far tougher walk than Palouse Ridge ...

And pigs can fly.

[Joe Stansell]

You give me a choice of 10 rounds with a cart that I can use at either Palouse Ridge or Chambers and I pick 10-0 to use it at Chambers.

Therein lies your problem: you can use a cart exactly 0 times at Chambers Bay and as many as 10 times at Palouse Ridge!  

Having completed my undergraduate work at neighboring University of Idaho, I'm well familiar with the ups and downs of the "rolling Palouse country." U of I is a tightly compacted course, and is still an exhausting 18 holes to walk -- even for a college kid. Palouse Ridge just looks so much worse to me.

I could be wrong; you've apparently walked it. But I still remain very surprised by your assessment.

 

[Craig Van Egmond]

As someone who spent a decade on the Kitsap Peninsula, Canterwood is the other Doak 0 with Port Ludlow.

Oh, come on, Michael you are being a bit harsh. Port Ludlow is AT LEAST a Doak 1...

The Trail 9 is clearly a 0.

The rest is  3-4ish.

Sean,

     I think the Trail 9 could be in negative numbers... haven't they blown that up yet?

[Joe Stansell]

Craig, at Port Ludlow, Trail is basically NLE. Only Tide and Timber remain.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Joe,

    Good.. a mercy killing.    I like Timber/Tide fairly well.  There is just so much better golf available now then back then when it was highly rated.

[Kalen Braley]

You give me a choice of 10 rounds with a cart that I can use at either Palouse Ridge or Chambers and I pick 10-0 to use it at Chambers.

Therein lies your problem: you can use a cart exactly 0 times at Chambers Bay and as many as 10 times at Palouse Ridge!  

Having completed my undergraduate work at neighboring University of Idaho, I'm well familiar with the ups and downs of the "rolling Palouse country." U of I is a tightly compacted course, and is still an exhausting 18 holes to walk -- even for a college kid. Palouse Ridge just looks so much worse to me.

Joe,

Not only is Chambers 1/4 mile longer from the 1st tee to 18 green, but it also:

- Has 3 walks of 200 yards or more between holes....more than Palouse, with only 2.
- You are required to walk halfway out of the pit on 3 different points of the round with a pretty substantial elevation differential
- You're required to walk around several different waste areas.
- The fairways at Chambers require walking up and down over several small undulating forms like #1, 13, and 18, while the fairways at Palouse are fairly flat, (most of the elevation difference is found between greens and tees)

And you even have to take a shuttle from the clubhouse to the 1st tee and back!! 

[Tom_Doak]

The 27 holes at Port Ludlow are, in fact, included in The Confidential Guide, and the Trail nine did earn the dreaded "0" rating from me.  No need to speculate there.  [Edit:  just saw Joe's post about the Trail nine being closed.  Another one [zero] bites the dust!  I took such abuse for those "0" ratings, but nearly all of them have been changed since.]

I am happy to see Tumble Creek getting some praise.  It is often overlooked.  I think it's just slightly better than the consensus view here -- I agree with most of what's been said about the course and the setting, but wonder why that makes it a 6 instead of a 7 in most people's eyes.  There are some 6's in my book that I would rather play than Tumble Creek, but there are a lot of modern courses rated 6 which I don't think are nearly as good.  [But of course, I would tend to view my own courses a little better than others do.]  

I do wonder if the restraint we showed with the bunkering there, while appreciated by many in this thread, subconsciously yields a lower rating.  I think it's about as good a set of greens as we've built, for a project where the greens were intended to be very fast from day one; and the scenery and conditions are superb, as noted.  I've only been back to play it two times since it opened, but it's always been in amazing condition.  So what else would hold it back?

The 15th hole did not come off as desired -- I struggle with water features, because at some point you have to hand them over to someone else -- but I was quite happy with the results of number 12, and with the rest of the holes on the really flat terrain [14 through 17].

[Jud_T]

How long is the golf season there?

[Tom_Doak]

How long is the golf season there?

Not long enough -- basically six months.  That's why I never get back there, it's the same golf season as at home, and it's construction season for most of our projects, too.

[Garland Bayley]

Joe,

Not only is Chambers 1/4 mile longer from the 1st tee to 18 green, but it also:

- Has 3 walks of 200 yards or more between holes....more than Palouse, with only 2.
- You are required to walk halfway out of the pit on 3 different points of the round with a pretty substantial elevation differential
- You're required to walk around several different waste areas.
- The fairways at Chambers require walking up and down over several small undulating forms like #1, 13, and 18, while the fairways at Palouse are fairly flat, (most of the elevation difference is found between greens and tees)

And you even have to take a shuttle from the clubhouse to the 1st tee and back!! 

Joe,

This us utter nonsense. The walk from 9 green to 10 tee at Palouse is 375 yards. And, it is severely uphill. It is worse than playing either 4 or 7 at Chambers Bay, and you are not even playing golf.

I can understand Kalen's jaded view of Chambers Bay, because he was under the mental stress of being very publicly beaten by a hack for the second straight time. That had to be exhausting.

[Richard Choi]

I believe Tumble Creek shares the same malady that haunts Plainfield.

Most of the course is so bold and rollicking fun with great use of elevation changes that the flat holes really fall short in comparison. I have a hard time remembering the valley holes and they certainly don't inspire your soul like many other holes at Tumble do.

If the valley holes were replaced with similar "mountain" holes that make up rest of the course, I believe it would be in the run as the best course in the state.

[Mike Hendren]

Tom, understandable.  I'm sure my mom thought I was a solid 7 as well.

Bogey

[Sean Leary]

The 27 holes at Port Ludlow are, in fact, included in The Confidential Guide, and the Trail nine did earn the dreaded "0" rating from me.  No need to speculate there.  [Edit:  just saw Joe's post about the Trail nine being closed.  Another one [zero] bites the dust!  I took such abuse for those "0" ratings, but nearly all of them have been changed since.]

I am happy to see Tumble Creek getting some praise.  It is often overlooked.  I think it's just slightly better than the consensus view here -- I agree with most of what's been said about the course and the setting, but wonder why that makes it a 6 instead of a 7 in most people's eyes.  There are some 6's in my book that I would rather play than Tumble Creek, but there are a lot of modern courses rated 6 which I don't think are nearly as good.  [But of course, I would tend to view my own courses a little better than others do.]  

I do wonder if the restraint we showed with the bunkering there, while appreciated by many in this thread, subconsciously yields a lower rating.  I think it's about as good a set of greens as we've built, for a project where the greens were intended to be very fast from day one; and the scenery and conditions are superb, as noted.  I've only been back to play it two times since it opened, but it's always been in amazing condition.  So what else would hold it back?

The 15th hole did not come off as desired -- I struggle with water features, because at some point you have to hand them over to someone else -- but I was quite happy with the results of number 12, and with the rest of the holes on the really flat terrain [14 through 17].

Pete Ferlicca had an interesting idea on 15 a while ago but I can't remember exactly what it was. I think it was to move up the tees and make it a par 4 and maybe use the current back tee to play 18 as a 5? Pete?

I think its a couple of things. One is the flattish ground towards the end, as discussed above. The other I think is the wind. Often times it REALLY blows, and while the course is plenty wide, the course isn't ideal to play under those conditions.  Almost wonder if the nines were reversed whether it might be received more favorably.

[Kalen Braley]

Richard,

I really think you hit the nail on the head with that last statement, because I couldn't put my finger on it until your last post

The contrast seems pretty stark from holes like 3 and 4, and then holes like 7 and 8.

One of the other "non-golf" intangibles I really liked about the place is how comfortable it felt before and after the round.  I was an unaccompanied guest on the day I played and was made to feel very welcome.  Combined with the view off the back near 10 tee and the guest lodges near the 10th fairway, it'd be an excellent place to spend a long weekend during those glorious summer months.

P.S.  Sean, great idea on 15 and 18.  18 was such a long finishing brute, but maybe it was only because the normal tail wind wasn't blowing that day.

[Peter Ferlicca]

Sean,

If you play 15 from the middle tees I am pretty sure it is around 455 yards downwind.  The creek that cuts through the middle of the fairway is only about 180 to 215 yards to carry off the tee and it is always downwind, so it is pretty easy to carry the creek for all handicappers if playing the right tees.  It would make it a better par 4 IMO. 

Then with 18 play it all the way back by #15 back tee.  It works out perfect because it is one the same line as #18 back tee but about 30 yards farther back.  If you play from the back tee on #15 you have to hit your drive out to the right of the fairway on #18 and not challenge the fairway bunker to the left, that you would normally try to fly from the normal tees.  #18 is such a hard long hole to begin with, and when combined with its wicked green, it would make more people happy playing it as a par 5.  Also the second shot on #18 if playing it from the #15 tee makes it a very tight shot that requires a lot of thinking. 

[Tom_Doak]

On 15, the client wanted a prominent water feature, so my original plan was to have water flowing from behind the green and just along the left side of it and then into the big pond ... it was always going to be a very short par-5 [in contrast to 14], but you would have had to hit two daring shots if you wanted to go for it.  But then the money for the water feature wasn't really there, and we didn't really know how to implement it anyway, so it just went away.

I don't think 18 would be a good par-5.  It would be a good one for the longer hitters [like Peter] who could still get there in two, but most people would be playing their second shot 50-100 yards short of the green, where there is really not much of a landing area ... and if you're not long you would be facing a sharply uphill third with trouble seeing the flag on the green.  To me, it's better as a tough par-4 where more people have a chance to get up around the green, but it's still very hard to make 4.

[Daryl David]

Agree.  I like 15 as is.  From the longer tees it can make you think twice about going over the creek.  If you fade it too much, you are toast.  In competitions it is surprising how many hybrids/5 woods you see come out on that tee to keep it short of the water.   

18 is an awesome par 4 from all sets of tees.  The second shot requires careful aim depending on where the pin is.  Even after a huge drive, a short iron to the wrong part of the green and you will be looking at a three putt.

[Steve_Lovett]

As someone who spent a decade on the Kitsap Peninsula, Canterwood is the other Doak 0 with Port Ludlow.

Oh, come on, Michael you are being a bit harsh. Port Ludlow is AT LEAST a Doak 1...

The Trail 9 is clearly a 0.

The rest is  3-4ish.

The Trail has been closed for a few years hasn't it?

[Kalen Braley]

Agree.  I like 15 as is.  From the longer tees it can make you think twice about going over the creek.  If you fade it too much, you are toast.  In competitions it is surprising how many hybrids/5 woods you see come out on that tee to keep it short of the water.  

18 is an awesome par 4 from all sets of tees.  The second shot requires careful aim depending on where the pin is.  Even after a huge drive, a short iron to the wrong part of the green and you will be looking at a three putt.

And if Tumble Creek ever held a big tourney....18 would be a perfect natural ampi-theatre hole where you could see the action on most of those closing holes...

P.S.   Tom, would you like to share any insights/thoughts on how you came up with 11?  Did you see that on the topo or not until you walked the site in person?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()