[John_Conley]

Doesn't Rustic Canyon sort of imply otherwise?

...they tell me it's nice.

I think offering up a course like that proves the point.

Who designed it?  I don't know, but I'm guessing he didn't meet the qualifications.  Part of the consideration was finding someone with enough name pizzazz to maximize the likelihood of this becoming a destination.  That comes at a higher price than someone else.

What is their maintenance budget?  I'll wager it is less than Chambers.

Where is it?  I thought someone told me it was in the middle of nowhere.  I believe Chambers is on Puget Sound.  I'll see for sure in three weeks.

Does it have a substantial clubhouse structure capable of housing large events?

I will be very surprised if the numbers for Rustic Canyon violate this principal.

Of course, some high-budget projects net a course that isn't special.  I think what makes a place like Pinon Hills, Wild Horse, or Rustic Canyone notable is that they are superb results of projects with lower aspirations.

It was determined by the developer (Mayor or City Commissioner or something) that a project with low aspirations was not going to benefit the area he served.  As a result he pursued Chambers Bay.

The green fee is in line with the cost structure.  Remember: Chambers Bay would not have been built otherwise.

[Garland Bayley]

Comparisons to Rustic Canyon are not apropos in my opinion.

As has already been mentioned, Chambers Bay was a reclamation project.

Beyond that Chambers Bay set higher goals than Rustic Canyon and in would appear to me that they have achieved them in Tommy N's and Brad K's opinions.

My opinion? They have achieved them in spades. Chambers Bay is quite a bit above Rustic Canyon in design and execution. Let's hope they have the revenue stream to keep it that way.

[John Kavanaugh]

Reality check...Klein always fluffs up his numbers in his magazine articles out of courtesy to owners and architects.

[Tom Huckaby]

Garland - have you played Rustic Canyon?  It's a pretty darn great golf course.  Saying CB is "quite a bit above Rustic Canyon in design and execution" is a very tall statement.  I'm not saying it's not true - I haven't been to CB - but I was just wondering on what you base that statement.

And JK - I haven't found that to be the case with Brad's reviews... but then again I don't read all that many of them.  Do others find his numbers inflated?

TH

[Scott Weersing]

Comparisons to Rustic Canyon are not apropos in my opinion.

As has already been mentioned, Chambers Bay was a reclamation project.

Beyond that Chambers Bay set higher goals than Rustic Canyon and in would appear to me that they have achieved them in Tommy N's and Brad K's opinions.

My opinion? They have achieved them in spades. Chambers Bay is quite a bit above Rustic Canyon in design and execution. Let's hope they have the revenue stream to keep it that way.

I agree that you cannot compare Rustic Canyon and Chambers Bay as municipal courses because they were created under different circumstances. Rustic Canyon is on land leased from the county of Ventura so there were very low land acquistion costs. Also, there is a large water main running under Rustic Canyon so they did not have to create lakes or sink wells for a constant water supply.

And the biggest difference- Rustic has carts while Chambers Bay does not.

There is no other course created like Chambers Bay in terms of a municipal course.

But should cities and counties try to develop golf courses in the current economic situation?
 

[RJ_Daley]

But should cities and counties try to develop golf courses in the current economic situation?

Scott, this forum has indeed discussed the underlying argument of whether municipalities in general should get into developing golf courses, as contrasted with the private sector, or club efforts.

I have always maintained that it is a sound endeavor for municipalities to provide this form of recreation based on the notions that it is a widely enjoyed sport and provides and preserves green space within communities, provides jobs, (usually if run correctly - returns some nominal fees to the community coffers) and is a legacy to the future of the community.

We've all heard the arguments on the other side that it unfairly competes with the private golf operator and develpment sector.  I'll leave it for those proponents speak their own views.  But, I haven't seen a private course not  be able to operate next to a muni, if run correctly.  

What ever the current economic situation you speak is, I think there are far more questionable and less beneficial expenses being covered by government entities than providing affordable recreation for the people.  Chambers Bay easements and walking-hiking paths are an added and justifiable feature that only adds to its legitimacy in my view.  When it starts bringing in tour or major events, it will be even more justifiable.  I think they ought to get a tour stop in there ASAP, and watch the local economy and hopefully some charities benefit.

[Brad Klein]

JK, just so we're clear, does that include my reviews in Golfweek's pages of: RTJ Trail - Schoolmaster (4.0), World Golf Village - Slammer & Squire (4.5), The Ranch GC (4.5), Marriott Wildflower - Faldo (5.0), University of New Mexico - Championship Course (5.0), Easthampton GC (5.5), Marriott - Grande Pines (5.5), The Orchards (5.5), Bridgewater (6.0), Farm Links (6.0), Greywalls (6.0), K Club - Palmer Course (6.0), Mauna Lani - North (6.0), PGA National - Champions (6.0), Redlands Mesa (6.0)?

[John Kavanaugh]

Brad,

Yes,  have any of the above mentioned courses ended up rated higher by your average minions...or is that minions average?  I think that it is sweet that you can give a course like Greywalls a 6 which makes it just out of the top 100.  Have you ever had a course that you gave a number of 6 or below make it up to the top 100?  Have you ever had a course in the top 100 come out higher than your given number?

[Brad Klein]

I think all of the domestic ones listed above ended up higher in the final rater evaluations than I gave, including Greywalls -- which is only held back from the top-100 by the fact that it doesn't get enough votes, even though the ones who visit rate it higher than I do.

Rustic Canyon rates higher than I gave it when I reviewed it, as does Medinah and both are in the top-100. Conversely, I rated PGA West-Stadium Course an 8 or so and the raters disagree completely with me on that one and so it's nowhere near the top-100. I gave high votes to Augusta CC that are not shared by the majority of raters.

Your lack of faith in people's judgment says more about you
than you can imagine.
 

[John Kavanaugh]

Brad,

I personally think that it is a good thing that golf magazines pump up courses rather than try to hurt them with poor reviews.  I forgot about your reviews of Medinah and even ANGC...Quite the limb.  I simply read your review of Chamber's to mean it to be top 50 and not top 5 even though I can say with full confidence that it is better than Pete Dye Golf Club...so who knows.  I like you, wish every course the best and those open to the public even better.

btw.  Any panel that thinks Ballyneal is an equal of Victoria National is fine by me...or insanely off base...so what's the difference.

[John Kavanaugh]

What really I wanted to see today when I was on the Golfweek site was the raters handbook on Long Shadow.   The review of the opening just didn't have the same punch without it.

[John Kavanaugh]

Your lack of faith in people's judgment says more about you
than you can imagine.
 

Hold it...Are you saying that if I don't believe everything I read about what courses are great, good or crap I have a character flaw.  I would suggest you take the time to read the posts of several of you minions and ask yourself why the hell you let these guys represent both yourself and your employer.  Even Conley said today that affordable courses are not being built because they do not make business sense.  How can I believe let alone suscribe to such nonsense when I know for a fact that affordable golf is the very foundation a golf architecture.  You my friend should clean house of such nonsense before I have another drink.

[Brad Klein]

"Even Conley said today that affordable courses are not being built because they do not make business sense."

Conley's basically correct. That's why he's a rater. So, I don't agree with some things some of the raters say, and I question some of their judgments. That's the price you pay for living in a democracy. It leads to good discussion. I spent 14 years in a classroom and learned that you deal with what you have and not everyone has to aspire to be a genius for them to make a contribution. As long as they are interested and committed and take their task somewhat seriously you can work with them.

Interestingly, if I try to educate them you accuse us of running a propaganda workshop. If we entrust to laissez faire you dismiss them as mindless minions.  

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't see how you can say Conley is correct when 4 architects are building high profile expensive courses and 40 are building affordable courses.  btw  I agree you need guys like Conley because he represents your readership far better than someone who understands architectue and the world of golf today.

[Tom_Doak]

Huck:

Did you just use the phrase "pretty darn great"?

[John Kavanaugh]

Golfweek and Digest are based in the reality of golf like Playboy and Penthouse are in....It is time we start to glorify what we can have instead of what we want.

[Mike Sweeney]

I don't see how you can say Conley is correct when 4 architects are building high profile expensive courses and 40 are building affordable courses.  btw  I agree you need guys like Conley because he represents your readership far better than someone who understands architectue and the world of golf today.

John,

I will bet you your dues at Hotchkiss for a year that you can't name 40 architects that are building new affordable courses today in the next two hours.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

Go to the ASGCA.com web site and pick the first 40 guys you have never heard of.  I'm drunk and two under...life is good and I'm kicking ass..

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I have always maintained that it is a sound endeavor for municipalities to provide this form of recreation based on the notions that it is a widely enjoyed sport and provides and preserves green space within communities, provides jobs, (usually if run correctly - returns some nominal fees to the community coffers) and is a legacy to the future of the community.

RJ is Chambers Bay providing recreation to the taxpayers it serves?  The County doesn't even think the course was built to serve the locals.  It is specifically designed as an economic driver for the local community.  It also provides a spray field for the adjoining sewage treatment plant that has been spewing treated effluent into Puget Sound through a single outfall.  The feds were nearing a point where all development could have been put on hold while the county fixed the problem.  A golf course served nicely.  

Now the question remains whether it is an apropriate undertaking for the sewage ratepayers to provide recreation for the well heeled.  I will tell you that their is considerable resentment within the community toward Chambers for two reasons:

1)It is over double the cost to play than other courses in the area with a only a couple of exceptions.

2) The walking only policy further restricts use by many local residents.

For these two reasons the voters shouldering the risks are feeling as though they have been in part excluded and disenfranchised.  The trail helps but it too is pretty strenuous for some.  

Only time will tell whether this bold stroke will pay for itself and provide the resources promised to complete the development of the adjoining public spaces.  

By the way I continue to maintain that the course itself is stunning.  What I would like the GCA community to understand is that the political environment that CB was constructed in is fairly complex and mired in intrigue and ego.

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike,

Go to the ASGCA.com web site and pick the first 40 guys you have never heard of.  I'm drunk and two under...life is good and I'm kicking ass..

Sorry to kill your buzz. i did not ask you to list 40 architects. I asked you to list 40 architects that are CURRENTLY working on 40 moderately priced golf courses. Submitted to the town board does not count. Southampton was supposed to build a town course 10 years ago at Red Creek. That one got shot down but The Bridge and Sebonnack got through. I know I know I live in a bubble, I am out of touch, out there in the Midwest it is a different story .... Show me the 40!

Red Creek:



Sorry on this one your boy JC is correct.

[Garland Bayley]

Tom H.

Yes, I have played Rustic Canyon. It is a fine course. However, Chambers Bay is better. I believe it offers more strategic options, it has better terrain, it has more distinct and memorable holes, and it is far more scenic to name a few things.

You have openly admitted to be blown away by the links courses of GB and by Bandon. If you think so highly of those places, I don't see how you can't be blown away by Chambers Bay.

[Mike_Cirba]

I briefly scanned this thread and wanted to correct one oft-misunderstood perception.

Simply put, a modern 8.5 - 9 means that Brad believes it's one of the top 50 modern (post 1960) courses in the country, probably hedged to around position 25 to 30.

While this is indeed a very positive assessment, there is NO direct comparison intended to rank Chambers Bay against classic (pre 1960) courses such as PV, Merion, Oakmont, Cypress Point, ANGC, et.al., nor can pure ratings numbers be extrapolated from the modern list to the classic and visa versa.

To sum it up, classic courses are compared and rated against classic courses only, and modern courses follow the same paradigm.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Chambers Bay looks fantastic.

I would really like to know if anyone knows enough about both projects to compare and contrast Chambers Bay with Spanish Bay.

I've always thought that RTJ Jr had great imagination and I enjoy most of his work that I have played.  I first played Spanish Bay when it opened with the fescue grass from tee to green. I thought it great fun for the most part but a totally lost opportunity for what it could have been. Owners putting the hotel on great property for golf. Environmental restraints all over and routing through the hotel area. RTJ Jr with Sandy Tatum and Tom Watson should have hit a home run at Spanish Bay but were obviously held back. With Chamber's Bay looking like a home run I wonder what could have been at Spanish Bay!

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Geoffrey I agree Spanish Bay is a lost opportunity.

[John Kavanaugh]

I briefly scanned this thread and wanted to correct one oft-misunderstood perception.

Simply put, a modern 8.5 - 9 means that Brad believes it's one of the top 50 modern (post 1960) courses in the country, probably hedged to around position 25 to 30.

While this is indeed a very positive assessment, there is NO direct comparison intended to rank Chambers Bay against classic (pre 1960) courses such as PV, Merion, Oakmont, Cypress Point, ANGC, et.al., nor can pure ratings numbers be extrapolated from the modern list to the classic and visa versa.

To sum it up, classic courses are compared and rated against classic courses only, and modern courses follow the same paradigm.

Mike Cirba - Golfweek Rater,

Here is the list of top 100 Modern Courses, please explain to me your logic considering there are only ten courses with a rating higher than 8.00; http://www.golfweek.com/lifestyles/golfweeksbest/modern/ You make my initial point in that I think Brad fluffs up a course that should be 25 to 30 with a score of 8.5 to 9...How else can you explain his number?  I agree with him and would do the same...why not help out a new course with a little boost...It is good for golf and the future of the game and increased work for our architect friends.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()