[Mike Hendren]

I'll stiplate that that the national professional championship should be conducted on quality putting surfaces and that Chambers Bay fell short in this regard.  Now to the architecture and the treehouse general consensus of what's good.
 
Extreme width - check.
Undulations - check.
Few trees - check.
Little water - check.
Short game options - check.
Firm and fast maintenance - check.
Greens within a green - check.
Kick plates - check.
Playability - check (I once played with a husband and wife)
Driveable par fours - check.
Fun - check.
Challenging - check.
Rough that doesn't dictate a pitch out - check.
Routing - there are a couple of disconnects but the hillside is very well navitaged and houses some of the better holes.  I'm guessing I have 25 pounds on the heaviest tournament participant and found the walk with bag on shoulder rigorous but no death march.
 
So, is golf architecture a lengthy equation where we multiply all factors by a final variable of zero if that variable is putting surface conditions?
 
Bogey
 
 

[Brent Hutto]

I'll stiplate that that the national professional championship should be conducted on quality putting surfaces and that Chambers Bay fell short in this regard.  Now to the architecture and the treehouse general consensus of what's good.
 
Extreme width - check.
Undulations - check.
Few trees - check.
Little water - check.
Short game options - check.
Firm and fast maintenance - check.
Greens within a green - check.
Kick plates - check.
Playability - check (I once played with a husband and wife)
Driveable par fours - check.
Fun - check.
Challenging - check.
Rough that doesn't dictate a pitch out - check.
Routing - there are a couple of disconnects but the hillside is very well navitaged and houses some of the better holes.  I'm guessing I have 25 pounds on the heaviest tournament participant and found the walk with bag on shoulder rigorous but no death march.
 
So, is golf architecture a lengthy equation where we multiply all factors by a final variable of zero if that variable is putting surface conditions?
 
Bogey

Checklists are for raters.


I'm all about "how much" of this versus "how much" of that.


I'd rather play a course with 50 yard wide fairways than one with 30 yard wide fairways. In fact, I'd rather play a course with 50 yard wide fairways and 2" rough AND CHAMBERS BAY POA-INFESTED GREENS AT THEIR WORST than to play a course with 30 yard wide fairways and 4" rough AND ABSOLUTELY PERFECT AUGUSTA NATIONAL GREENS.


At some point, my desire not to be searching for balls all day and hacking them out with lob wedges outweighs my desire to see 20 foot putts rolls true the entire way to the hole.


I like width but I don't need 100+ yards of  it. Likewise for other factors. I like undulations but I don't need six foot tall sideboards on greens (although they are great, don't get me wrong, just saying a three foot tall sideboard works just as well). I prioritize easily walked routings more than most people probably. Don't care a fig about "no trees".


What your question is really asking sounds like this. Are width, undulation, dryness, firmness and all these other desirable qualities WHEN TAKEN TO A COMPLETELY OVER THE TOP EXTREME so much better than a moderately firm, fast, wide, undulating, firm and fast course that all shortcomings are forgiven.


To that question, my answer is no. Once I've got enough of the good qualities, taking that to 11 does not make up for crap greens and unpleasantly long and hilly walks. It's like saying if your hunting dog is loyal enough and faithful enough and has a beautiful enough long, silky coat can that make up for pissing on your leg and not being able to hunt a lick.

[Phil McDade]

Bogey:


When I was first learning about the game, it was with my grandfather, and I wondered why he spent so much time on the putting green when all of his buddies were on the driving range. He told me: "It's half the game, son."


I agree with you -- I liked most of what I saw about Chambers Bay as a piece of architecture for a U.S. Open. But putting carries a disproportionate impact on the game -- it's no wonder people are focusing on it (and in the same vein, no wonder that the game's best overall putter has now won the first two majors of the year on putting surfaces that were perfect, and then not-so....

[Kevin Lynch]

Couldn't agree more. 


This course is on my definite play list now.  If I weren't already heading to Bandon in October (and tacking CB on to that trip), I would have made a separate trip to see this one, for all the reasons you stated.


Frankly, a little bumpiness in putts would be the least important thing to me.  I'm not of the mindset that a 1-putt is a strong expectation.  I understand that pros do feel that way, so I understand their frustration.  However, when this one variable overrides the multiple positives that Bogey highlighted, I think we've admitted that professional golf has become a bit too one-dimensional.




To some extent, there is always going to be population (even here at GCA) that will find a course like CB too extreme-looking to ever be fully considered (or will never be able to get past the fact that the land wasn't "found" that way).  Extreme topography tends to polarize opinions, leading to a disregard of many other variables.  The polarity of opinions here isn't the least bit surprising.  Throw in some knee-jerk cynicism towards the USGA and Fox Sports, and it's not all that shocking that many of CB's positives got lost in Bogey's theoretical equation.

[George Pazin]

Nice post, Brent.

[Mike Hendren]

Good post indeed Brent.  But I suspect most of us will take a dog that hunts even if we have to wear Gortex trousers.  Also, your choice to focus on the dog's appearance is a curious choice in the context of this thread.
 
Has this website always just assumed that greens roll true on the courses we discuss?  Funny, I never got that conditioning was that big a deal.  It's totally okay if it is, but I hope future course reviews will spend the appropriate bandwidth to discuss how the ball rolls on the greens.
 
Respectfully (as I hope you know!)
 
Mike
 
 

[Brent Hutto]

I deliberately played up the appearance thing. Although maybe in describing the consensus GCA taste we shouldn't be talking about some sort of Spaniel but rather a dog along these lines.





As for "conditioning" it means different things to different people but I've quit even trying to deny that my own impressions of a golf course are much more about conditioning than about various "strategic" options or what have you. Now my own "conditioning" preferences are different than a lot of the general public. Brown is great (gold is better) and any course that isn't firm is a dog that won't hunt as far as I'm concerned.


But in short, yes I do assume the greens generally roll true if I'm talking about a great or even very good course. It's the thorn in my flesh, so to speak, but one I'm not afraid to admit.

[Mike Hendren]

One more thing:  How the heck to you come home in 29 strokes in the final round of the U. S. Open on the worst greens (by far) in the tournament's (or tour's for that matter) history?
 
Bogey

[Michael Moore]

Watching ball after ball collect to within eight feet or roll eighty feet away confirmed to me the silliness of "greens" within greens.

[Brent Hutto]

Watching ball after ball collect to within eight feet or roll eighty feet away confirmed to me the silliness of "greens" within greens.

Really? I'm not saying that sort of concept is better per se than broadly contoured, more subtle greens.


But it's a fun way to play golf IMO. Maybe I'm just a homer here because my club has (on some greens) exactly that sort of character. For my game it comes into play more with recovery shots or the wedge game than with long approaches because frankly I'm not accurate enough from 150 yards to even hit the green consistently, much less hit a small "green within a green".


Philosophically it's a question of where do you want proportionality to end and pass/fail grading to take over.


On a broadly contoured green if you judge a shot absolutely perfectly you might end up 3 feet from the hole. Slightly less perfectly, maybe 10 feet. Judge is sorta, kinda, well and you're 20 feet. Misjudge it badly and you're off by 20+ yards.


On greens like Chambers Bay or at my club, it's pass/fail grading. Either you get the pace right to climb over that last ridge and then stop on the same tier as the hole or you don't. Pass and you get a 3 to 10 foot putt. Misjudge it just a bit, you fail and either get a triple-breaking 40-footer or you fail AND get unlucky and end up rolling off the green into a bunker or some rough.


I think that's a great way to play golf. I love concepts of like "good enough". Do *this* and you get a definite reward (like a short, flat putt). Do "that" and you don't get an honorable mention (a 15-footer with a bit of break) but instead you get the booby prize.

[Kevin Lynch]

Watching ball after ball collect to within eight feet or roll eighty feet away confirmed to me the silliness of "greens" within greens.

Yes - much better that none roll within 8 feet and all roll 80 feet away (wait, that was last year).  Or were you just posting a comment about Augusta 2 months late? 


I'll gladly play these silly greens and look for boomerang options to feed shots into them.

[Matt Kardash]

I feel like this course overdoes it with the kick plates.

[Tim Pitner]

When overdone, even good concepts become tiresome or formulaic.  The kick plates at Chambers Bay may fall into that category.  Short par 4s at recent US Opens are definitely in that category, IMHO. 

I haven't played CB so will of course reserve judgment, but it seems to fail the walk in the park test.  Of course, it's a unique property and maybe that's an unfair test for a quarry course.  Other than the great NW setting, I wasn't captivated by the course.  It all seems like a bit much.  The finish was dramatic, but mostly because Spieth missed a little putt on the 71st hole and then Johnson missed one on the 72nd hole.

[Mike Hendren]

The kickplates and sideboards are a bit overdone in my opinion.  No less an expert than Sean Leary pointed this out years ago.  You might not like them, but when you play the course you appreciate them.
 
Bogey

[John Sabino]

Michael - Spot on, I think it does meet all the tests and from what I saw it looks like an interesting place to play. it is very hard to argue the course setup was wrong when clearly the best player prevailed. Kudos to Mike Davis and the USGA for getting it right, which many people are ever hesitent to give credit to. They all had to play the same course so it's hard to emphathize with the whiners complaining about the greens. We give a lot of love on CGA to the minimalist designers, how about some love for RTJ, Jr. who did a good jub designing a great golf course.


Chambers Bay is exactly what a good design should be - strategic. I'm a bigger fan of this than tree lined US Open courses like baltusrol. The pros were forced to think of and hit shots they normally don't, which created an exciting Open. Loved the driveable holes and short shots required around the greens.


John

[Garland Bayley]

...
Routing - there are a couple of disconnects but the hillside is very well navitaged and houses some of the better holes.  I'm guessing I have 25 pounds on the heaviest tournament participant and found the walk with bag on shoulder rigorous but no death march.
...

... unpleasantly long and hilly walks. ...

Please note that Bogey has played the course, but that Brent hasn't.

[Greg Tallman]

Is this simply a case of too much of a good thing equals something less than a great finished product?

[Mike Hendren]

Is this simply a case of too much of a good thing equals something less than a great finished product?

You might be on to something, and your comment is consistent with Brent's strong post above.  Chambers is over the top in places, but to compare with Whistling Straits, nothing as disquieting as the latter's finisher and the double-dogleg, beach bunkered par five on the front.
 
I've been critical of Davis in the past and agree with much of what's being said here, but I do think the lower tee on the 9th at CB eliminates one of the three akward holes there. 

[Jason Thurman]

Mike, the reactions to Chambers remind me of some conversations you and I have had in the past, and some of the courses we've discussed. I seem to recall that you and I are both fans of the Dunes course at The Prairie Club, as well as Idle Hour. I suspect we're both higher on those courses than most people. I haven't played Chambers Bay, but it sure looked like something I would love.


I mention The Prairie Club and Idle Hour because I think they're both courses that espouse certain principles that golf course architecture aficionados tend to love. The Prairie Club is wide, windy, strategically bunkered, full of variety, fast and firm year-round, and features some of the biggest and most significantly contoured greens around. Idle Hour is a "Ross" course with magnificently reclaimed bunkers, significant strategic width, beautiful shaping, and a superb routing. Considering how beautifully they reflect celebrated architectural principles, it initially seems shocking that they aren't higher up on rating lists.


The thing that makes those two courses stand out from others with similar qualities is that they feature a LOT of a few good things. The Prairie Club is so vast and expansive that players have a hard time wrapping their heads around it. It's so large in scale that it becomes a very challenging walk. It has so many secrets that it's impossible to uncover them all. At times it feels like playing a mirage. Idle Hour may be a Ross, but it has been lengthened and rerouted over the years so that a full third of the routing is comprised of holes Donny never thought of. It's ridiculously long and difficult if you get on the wrong tees, though still a blast to play. Holes like 7 and 8 feel almost arrogant in their bold presentation, and I imagine that Ross would blush if he knew how many people attribute them to him.


Put more simply, these are courses that "go to 11." I love them, but of course I do. I spent yesterday eating Five Guys, watching Jurassic World, and drinking margaritas by the pint glass while glued to US Open coverage from Chambers Bay. I like subtlety, but only when it's undetectable because there's so much stuff exploding in front of your face.

[Phil McDade]

Chambers is over the top in places, but to compare with Whistling Straits, nothing as disquieting as the latter's finisher and the double-dogleg, beach bunkered par five on the front.
 

Without which WStraits doesn't get built (I can hear Bogey right now: "Oh goodie!")

[Doug Siebert]

The kickplates and sideboards are a bit overdone in my opinion.  No less an expert than Sean Leary pointed this out years ago.  You might not like them, but when you play the course you appreciate them.
 
Bogey

The same complaints are made about Dismal White. If you wanted to design a course solely to challenge the world's best players, or give members bragging rights for how tough their home course is you wouldn't do this. If you wanted to design a course that's fun to play for mortals who don't always hit where they aim, and fun for accomplished players because they have multiple options on how to play a shot, then you do. Chambers Bay wasn't designed to host the US Open, or if it was at least they realized they'd need to make some money in between the once a decade chance to host a major.

Maybe it is too much with that feature, but just about every course that hosts a major has "too much" something. Usually too much deep rough and narrow fairways, but there are variations like Pinehurst has too much of the ball repelling crowned greens and so on. I wonder how it would be received to see a course that mixed styles, and had some holes that were narrow with thick rough, others with fairways 80 yards wide and options for approach angles. Some holes with a green complex surrounded by kickplates, others with a crowned green that falls off in three directions?

FWIW, if I was going to pick a nit with Chambers Bay, it wouldn't be the number of kickplates, it would be allowing the greens to play so differently - some have been infested with poa, others that were rebuilt are still pure fescue. As a player I think I'd be more annoyed by that contrast than by the generally bumpy character of the poa greens. As far as Dismal White, it wouldn't be the number of kickplates there either, but the lack of distance variety (and general shortness) of the par 3s. The only one that can play even a semi-respectful length is the 5th from the back tees. Though from there that hole would be an unreasonable test for someone who isn't at least a little bit longer than average due to the combination of required carry and elevation, along with what happens to shots that don't make it past the false front.

[Bill Brightly]

Watching ball after ball collect to within eight feet or roll eighty feet away confirmed to me the silliness of "greens" within greens.

Spoken like a true low handicap US country club golfer! I assume that you want the iron shots that Speith and McIlroy hit on the par three 15th to be rewarded and stop 15 feet below the hole, because these shots were straight at the pin and hit very close. It must have seemed so unfair to you to watch those "almost great" shots roll back so far.

I COMPLETELY disagree. Speith and Rory knew what they risked when they chose those irons. The "green within a green" concept is actually the very best way to REALLY test great players. "Traditional" greens proportionally reward a better iron player. If you can hit your irons 5 yards straighter than me you'll be rewarded with a putt that is 15 feet shorter. But on a "green within a green" my 5 yard pull or push may cost me 50-100 feet of extra length on my putt, or much worse: my ball may bound into a hazard.

[Sean_A]

This was comfortably the most entertaining US Open I have ever witnessed that didn't have anything to do with the players.  CB out Augusted Augusta.  To me it doesn't matter if the players complained or if people don't like brown grass or if people want to play CH or not.  This was a very fun event to watch and that is only reason I watch golf...well that and as a sedative for sleeping.


Ciao

[David Kelly]

This was comfortably the most entertaining US Open I have ever witnessed that didn't have anything to do with the players.  CB out Augusted Augusta.  To me it doesn't matter if the players complained or if people don't like brown grass or if people want to play CH or not.  This was a very fun event to watch and that is only reason I watch golf...well that and as a sedative for sleeping.

I agree completely. I spent most of my weekend golfing at a far better course but from what I saw this was a very interesting tournament held on a flawed but very interesting golf course.

[Garland Bayley]

So David,


Want to debate the course you played vs. Chambers? Assuming of course I have played the course you played.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()