[Adam Clayman]

Bill, The moisture is good. The snow cover is not bad as long as it does not last for more than 60 days. But what do I know? I'm just a stupid member of a course that never sees any of this. 

The objection to threads like these is suspiciously mis-placed.

[Lou_Duran]

Adam,

I am sorry if I am a bit obtuse.  But when you say:  "The objection to threads like these is suspiciously mis-placed." do you mean that you think they are appropriate or not?  It seems like we got some interesting, useful information as a result.

Cos,

Are the new reduced fairway lines fairly visible?  From the daily-fee player's perspective, what do you think will be their effect?  Much more difficult?  Slower play?

Tom Doak,

If shade is a problem, is there a solution other than switching grasses?  I am assuming that there is not some blue light or similar techonolgy that's economically viable for such a large scale application.

 

[Ian Larson]

Well, now that there are some pictures to finally paint the picture for the thread it is completely appearant that the problem is high volumes of

traffic being funneled into certain areas around the green that is by all means still fescue and bent in its infancy.


Bottom line....

                .....the design did not mesh seamlessly with the agronomics (fescue) and the business model (high volume public) and the
                     expectations (fast opening for revenue). Fescue is a fine grass to use there. Its all the other factors limiting it.



Per Adam Clayman...

                "The objection to threads like these is suspiciously mis-placed."

                           ....the only objection to threads like these is that there is never enough evidence for anyone on here to come to a
                               approximate conclusion at best. Threads like these breed speculation which inoculate false rumors. And with Chambers
                               being public and funded by taxpayer money the taxpayer has a right to know, this isnt the forum for answers to be
                               found. The local government is, or even better the golf course superintendent himself.
   
                               The last thread brought up about Chambers Bay was spawning very crude speculation by people that thought they
                               knew what they were talking about. As they typed each word and posted each post they were only exposing
                               themselves as not knowing what they were talking about, while thinking they did. Something like this should be taken
                               as an example of those of you who are members at a club or are essentially a stock holder by merely paying taxes
                               towards your local public links, communication is key to your facilities success. Go straight to the source for answers
                               instead of going back to the locker room (GCA.com) and starting rumors with all the other members.

                               I will say that I personally spoke to the super at Chambers who is a very bright and courteous guy, but Im not at liberty
                               to comment otherwise about this. What I will say is this, which reinforces what Ive said on the other Chambers thread,
                               you make think you know what youre talking about agronomically. But the only person who knows the issue is the super
                               at Chambers. Hes the one who is intimate with day in and day out conditions and circumstances on his property.

                               This specific thread was also started as a rumor. Actually making a claim, that they HEARD from someone on the staff
                               that the super miscalculated the rates for seeding. Thats a very bold thing to post in a public forum. That could effect
                               someones livlihood and thats F***ED UP.

                               The same personality types that have the nerve to start a thread like this or support them are the ones that are
                               suspicious and are probably the same guys that are the rumor cancer at their respective clubs.

               

[Anthony Gray]

Well, now that there are some pictures to finally paint the picture for the thread it is completely appearant that the problem is high volumes of

traffic being funneled into certain areas around the green that is by all means still fescue and bent in its infancy.


Bottom line....

                .....the design did not mesh seamlessly with the agronomics (fescue) and the business model (high volume public) and the
                     expectations (fast opening for revenue). Fescue is a fine grass to use there. Its all the other factors limiting it.



Per Adam Clayman...

                "The objection to threads like these is suspiciously mis-placed."

                           ....the only objection to threads like these is that there is never enough evidence for anyone on here to come to a
                               approximate conclusion at best. Threads like these breed speculation which inoculate false rumors. And with Chambers
                               being public and funded by taxpayer money the taxpayer has a right to know, this isnt the forum for answers to be
                               found. The local government is, or even better the golf course superintendent himself.
   
                               The last thread brought up about Chambers Bay was spawning very crude speculation by people that thought they
                               knew what they were talking about. As they typed each word and posted each post they were only exposing
                               themselves as not knowing what they were talking about, while thinking they did. Something like this should be taken
                               as an example of those of you who are members at a club or are essentially a stock holder by merely paying taxes
                               towards your local public links, communication is key to your facilities success. Go straight to the source for answers
                               instead of going back to the locker room (GCA.com) and starting rumors with all the other members.

                               I will say that I personally spoke to the super at Chambers who is a very bright and courteous guy, but Im not at liberty
                               to comment otherwise about this. What I will say is this, which reinforces what Ive said on the other Chambers thread,
                               you make think you know what youre talking about agronomically. But the only person who knows the issue is the super
                               at Chambers. Hes the one who is intimate with day in and day out conditions and circumstances on his property.

                               This specific thread was also started as a rumor. Actually making a claim, that they HEARD from someone on the staff
                               that the super miscalculated the rates for seeding. Thats a very bold thing to post in a public forum. That could effect
                               someones livlihood and thats F***ED UP.

                               The same personality types that have the nerve to start a thread like this or support them are the ones that are
                               suspicious and are probably the same guys that are the rumor cancer at their respective clubs.

               

  So are the greens playable?

  Anthony

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I t would appear that the greens away from the hillside, all those except 13, 4, 7 and possibly #8 are fine.  In November they were relativley slow but showed pretty good improvement over July when I played them several times. 

In context, you have to understand that Pacific Northwesterners are used to playing Poa in a perfect environment for that surface.  They can be kept very fast and with some care can be pretty firm.  The contrast between the surfaces at Chambers and those at my own club, 1 mile away, is dramatic; maybe 3 feet on the stimp meter difference (8-11). 

Hindsight being what it is.........the course should have been built along the water.  This would have enabled many more golfers to walk it, the light would not have been a problem, parking and clubhouse facilities could have been at the bottom of the slope.  However, politics prevented that from happening.  We need to be clear that These were for the most part political decisions not ones made by the architects (that would make an interesting thread). 

Now what do we do?  We have a course with 37,000 rounds in 2008, the green fees are discounted in the winter months to enable that to happen, and the 4 greens at the top of the slopes are struggling due to an apparent combination of poor light and 7000 more rounds per year than planned.  I also wonder whether we are just far enough north to make the fescue the wrong choice for the golf course.  It works in Bandon, but that is several degrees warmer in the winter. 

As a taxpayer and resident, I want this project to work. 

[Ian Larson]

I keep hearing shade and temperatures....


                    Fescue is the turfgrass that has a naturally high tolerance to shade. Its also very suitable for colder climates. If you go to the
                    nusery section at Home Depot and look at all the lawn seed bags labeled as "shade grass"....its because its fescue.

                    Shade and cold winter temps are not the reason for any issue. Its too much traffic too soon on maturing fescue, in combination
                    with with enough suitable areas around the greens to disperse entry / exit traffic instead of condensing it.

[Sean Leary]

I t would appear that the greens away from the hillside, all those except 13, 4, 7 and possibly #8 are fine.  In November they were relativley slow but showed pretty good improvement over July when I played them several times. 

In context, you have to understand that Pacific Northwesterners are used to playing Poa in a perfect environment for that surface.  They can be kept very fast and with some care can be pretty firm.  The contrast between the surfaces at Chambers and those at my own club, 1 mile away, is dramatic; maybe 3 feet on the stimp meter difference (8-11). 

Hindsight being what it is.........the course should have been built along the water.  This would have enabled many more golfers to walk it, the light would not have been a problem, parking and clubhouse facilities could have been at the bottom of the slope.  However, politics prevented that from happening.  We need to be clear that These were for the most part political decisions not ones made by the architects (that would make an interesting thread). 

Now what do we do?  We have a course with 37,000 rounds in 2008, the green fees are discounted in the winter months to enable that to happen, and the 4 greens at the top of the slopes are struggling due to an apparent combination of poor light and 7000 more rounds per year than planned.  I also wonder whether we are just far enough north to make the fescue the wrong choice for the golf course.  It works in Bandon, but that is several degrees warmer in the winter. 

As a taxpayer and resident, I want this project to work. 

Cos,

What was the political problem with having more holes nearer to the water? I assumed the decision to go up the slope was to take advantage of the views. Clearly the biggest weakness on the course...

[Adrian_Stiff]

Often a fatal mistake is to discount winter green fees. You do not want large volumes of play when the plant is struggling against nature, you want low or possibly zero volume. Economics will dictate but the plain fact....surfaces will deteriorate if you are in difficult winter climates.

As Ian mentioned, the green shown looks to be too restrictive, turning looks a problem too. Green design must consider maintenance issues as well as what is good for golf. How many sq metres is this green?

[PThomas]

might they have to RAISE green fees to discourage so much play?

i

[Brian Walshe]

Most new courses I've been lucky enough to play have had a few issues, normally around rough (too much or too little) or drainage in a few places or unexpected wear in a couple of spots.  I'm guessing the combination of the fescue, climate and load might mean that it will be a year or two before Chambers Bay reaches its true potential.  Fescue does handle shade well but grass getting more sun will always be healthier so you'd have to expect that the greens shaded by the cliffs will not be as advanced as those on the same property getting more sun.  Golfers used to bent or poa greens will always find fescue different.  It looks different and it rolls differently so you'd expect people to comment on it.

Are the greens at Chambers "playable"?  Absolutely.  Are they slower than I am used to?  Absolutely.  Will I play Chambers next time I'm in Seattle?  Absolutely.  It has a ton of options, it has a few terrific holes (and only one I didn't like, 8 ) and it was fun to play.  The second shot into 10 alone would get me back. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Raising the height of cut by a millimetre would help. At 6mm, even 7mm for the winter would help a lot. If a green is in a lot of winter shade I don't know there is a great prognosis, perhaps an alternate green for these holes. The problem greens would need greater design consideration in favour of what is good for the plant.

[Sean Leary]

Most new courses I've been lucky enough to play have had a few issues, normally around rough (too much or too little) or drainage in a few places or unexpected wear in a couple of spots.  I'm guessing the combination of the fescue, climate and load might mean that it will be a year or two before Chambers Bay reaches its true potential.  Fescue does handle shade well but grass getting more sun will always be healthier so you'd have to expect that the greens shaded by the cliffs will not be as advanced as those on the same property getting more sun.  Golfers used to bent or poa greens will always find fescue different.  It looks different and it rolls differently so you'd expect people to comment on it.

Are the greens at Chambers "playable"?  Absolutely.  Are they slower than I am used to?  Absolutely.  Will I play Chambers next time I'm in Seattle?  Absolutely.  It has a ton of options, it has a few terrific holes (and only one I didn't like, and it was fun to play.  The second shot into 10 alone would get me back. 

You didn't like the 9th hole either? 

[Brian Walshe]

Sean,

Corrected     8 feels like it has been transplanted from Newcastle. 

[Sean Leary]

Sean,

Corrected     8 feels like it has been transplanted from Newcastle. 

Ouch....

8 has actually grown on me. Many here, like me, don't like number 9...

[Michael Dugger]

The 8 and 9 junction is one of my least favorite aspects of the CB routing.

[Garland Bayley]

I t would appear that the greens away from the hillside, all those except 13, 4, 7 and possibly #8 are fine.  In November they were relativley slow but showed pretty good improvement over July when I played them several times. 

In context, you have to understand that Pacific Northwesterners are used to playing Poa in a perfect environment for that surface.  They can be kept very fast and with some care can be pretty firm.  The contrast between the surfaces at Chambers and those at my own club, 1 mile away, is dramatic; maybe 3 feet on the stimp meter difference (8-11). 

Hindsight being what it is.........the course should have been built along the water.  This would have enabled many more golfers to walk it, the light would not have been a problem, parking and clubhouse facilities could have been at the bottom of the slope.  However, politics prevented that from happening.  We need to be clear that These were for the most part political decisions not ones made by the architects (that would make an interesting thread). 

Now what do we do?  We have a course with 37,000 rounds in 2008, the green fees are discounted in the winter months to enable that to happen, and the 4 greens at the top of the slopes are struggling due to an apparent combination of poor light and 7000 more rounds per year than planned.  I also wonder whether we are just far enough north to make the fescue the wrong choice for the golf course.  It works in Bandon, but that is several degrees warmer in the winter. 

As a taxpayer and resident, I want this project to work. 

Cos,

What was the political problem with having more holes nearer to the water? I assumed the decision to go up the slope was to take advantage of the views. Clearly the biggest weakness on the course...

Sean,

Isn't there lodging planned for the middle of the property that prevented it for being used for the course? That's my recollection any way.

[Sean Leary]

I t would appear that the greens away from the hillside, all those except 13, 4, 7 and possibly #8 are fine.  In November they were relativley slow but showed pretty good improvement over July when I played them several times. 

In context, you have to understand that Pacific Northwesterners are used to playing Poa in a perfect environment for that surface.  They can be kept very fast and with some care can be pretty firm.  The contrast between the surfaces at Chambers and those at my own club, 1 mile away, is dramatic; maybe 3 feet on the stimp meter difference (8-11). 

Hindsight being what it is.........the course should have been built along the water.  This would have enabled many more golfers to walk it, the light would not have been a problem, parking and clubhouse facilities could have been at the bottom of the slope.  However, politics prevented that from happening.  We need to be clear that These were for the most part political decisions not ones made by the architects (that would make an interesting thread). 

Now what do we do?  We have a course with 37,000 rounds in 2008, the green fees are discounted in the winter months to enable that to happen, and the 4 greens at the top of the slopes are struggling due to an apparent combination of poor light and 7000 more rounds per year than planned.  I also wonder whether we are just far enough north to make the fescue the wrong choice for the golf course.  It works in Bandon, but that is several degrees warmer in the winter. 

As a taxpayer and resident, I want this project to work. 

Cos,

What was the political problem with having more holes nearer to the water? I assumed the decision to go up the slope was to take advantage of the views. Clearly the biggest weakness on the course...

Sean,

Isn't there lodging planned for the middle of the property that prevented it for being used for the course? That's my recollection any way.

Hi Garland,

I have never heard that, but I wasn't at the event with you guys...could be...

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Sean & Garland:  I believe the issue after sitting through numerous hearings and public comment was that the flatter area to the south of the course would become play fields and park. 

Nothing like a park and little league field with a closeup view of a sewage treatment plant!

With strong opposition to portions of the project, I think that the use of the more difficult section of the property was more palatable.  Interstingly, as I think back, the decision to place the course in its present location was very early in the process.  It would be interesting if the planners at the county ever really considered what would seem the "obvious" choice to we golf nuts. 

[Tom Yost]

                           ....the only objection to threads like these is that there is never enough evidence for anyone on here to come to a
                               approximate conclusion at best. Threads like these breed speculation which inoculate false rumors. And with Chambers
                               being public and funded by taxpayer money the taxpayer has a right to know, this isnt the forum for answers to be
                               found. The local government is, or even better the golf course superintendent himself.
   
                               The last thread brought up about Chambers Bay was spawning very crude speculation by people that thought they
                               knew what they were talking about. As they typed each word and posted each post they were only exposing
                               themselves as not knowing what they were talking about, while thinking they did. Something like this should be taken
                               as an example of those of you who are members at a club or are essentially a stock holder by merely paying taxes
                               towards your local public links, communication is key to your facilities success. Go straight to the source for answers
                               instead of going back to the locker room (GCA.com) and starting rumors with all the other members.

                               I will say that I personally spoke to the super at Chambers who is a very bright and courteous guy, but Im not at liberty
                               to comment otherwise about this. What I will say is this, which reinforces what Ive said on the other Chambers thread,
                               you make think you know what youre talking about agronomically. But the only person who knows the issue is the super
                               at Chambers. Hes the one who is intimate with day in and day out conditions and circumstances on his property.

                               This specific thread was also started as a rumor. Actually making a claim, that they HEARD from someone on the staff
                               that the super miscalculated the rates for seeding. Thats a very bold thing to post in a public forum. That could effect
                               someones livlihood and thats F***ED UP.

                               The same personality types that have the nerve to start a thread like this or support them are the ones that are
                               suspicious and are probably the same guys that are the rumor cancer at their respective clubs.

         

Well, as the starter of this thread, I must object to your characterization.

Wasn't there a recent thread about questioning motives?

The condition of the greens at Chambers is a matter of public record and has been often discussed here and on other forums.  The course will soon be in the public spotlight when it hosts the Amateur and then the US Open.

My only motive was to discover an answer to the problem.  The comments I posted from the other forum presented a possible reason and I thought it could be interesting to add to the discussion.  To solve a problem, one must seek the root cause. 

No way was it my intention to point fingers or assign blame.  I do not seek to dissuade anyone from visiting and playing Chambers Bay.  I had the great fortune to be able to play it in August and will continue to recommend it as a "must play" for any golfer visiting the area.

[Anthony Gray]

  In defense of Tom I think he was trying to offer an explanation for the greens and not create gossip. In fact I was told to stay away from Chambers Bay until they got the greens up to par. If you read Tom's post you will find no malice.

  Anthony

[Kalen Braley]

My only comment on this thread would be this.

Regardless of how some of the greens got into the shape they are in, and regardless of how innocent or guilty any of the parties may be, it doesn't change the fact that they still seem to be in rough condition.  I couldn't see myself traveling from out of state and then paying a hefty visitors green fee for that.

[Ian Larson]

Tom Yost and others,

                             I dont have much time right now and will sit down later for more but let just ask one thing for you to think about, and this
                             is completely hypothetical....



                             If Tom Doak was involved with the design and construction of a public course which is having some issues recently,
                             and you read somewhere that a guy told a guy that Tom Doak specified wrong building materials and was way
                             off with estimating the cost of the project angering local taxpayers.

                             

                            Would you come on to GCA.com (which ALOT of people read) and call Tom out on what you read that a guy told a guy?

                            Is that REALLY the best way to go about this?

                            Is that the BEST way you could possibly think of?

                            Did you ever think of approaching this in a different manner?

                            For one second did you think about the superintendent who you publicly posted a HUGE rumor about?

                            Did you ever think about this being read by the wrong people?


                            I could go on and on but Im sure the answer to all of these is "NO".



This thread and the other Chambers Bay have done nothing but spread rumors, SERIOUS RUMORS. People have made posts on these threads
that have made claims such as.....


                                             The wrong turf was selected

                                             The wrong sand was selected because it was imported

                                             The superintendent didnt know how to calibrate his spreaders and seeded at the wrong rates.


                                             ....thats just great. What interesting threads by the treehouse. You guys are really going to get down to the
                                             bottom of this one from your computers arent you?



                Heres an idea that I have said over and over.......


                                              If your playing at Chambers Bay bitching about the condition of the greens, how about grabbing a coffee
                                              after your round and take a ride down to the superintendents office and ask him yourself.

                                              If youve never played Chambers Bay and you are bringing up bullshit points of why you think they are having
                                              some problems, why dont you first look up their website and read the supers fantastic blog about the
                                              maintenance. And Second, look up the phone number and call him personally to see if he can explain to you
                                              the challenges he is facing.


                 
                 Tom Yost and others,

                                 This wouldve made for a far more interesting thread if a little pro-activeness would have been taken before posting
                                 something that has no content to it and could possibly have some serious effects.

                                 I know that all the guys are going to chime in with their "in defense of...." and that I myself will get hammered for
                                 taking this stance. But to answer my own question. I would never come on to GCA.com and start an entire thread
                                 that I know will be read by many, that is based on rumor and could possibly effect another contributor on here or effect
                                 someone in the industry.

                             

                             

                             
                             
                             





                             

[Lou_Duran]

I've known a number of superintendents in my 35+ years in the game, most who are extremely capable and a credit to their profession.  In my opinion, superintendents and their staffs seldom get proper credit for the quality of their courses and probably relatively often are blamed for factors outside their control.

Having said all this, not more than a few take questions or criticism very well; actually, some are down right defensively hostile about it.  And as far as taking a cart down to the maintenance building, as hard as I have always tried to be friendly and genuienly interested in their work, my experience has been that some are far less approachable than what Ian suggests.  Perhaps they are too busy, or maybe the curriculum doesn't include enough public relations, but I have had medical doctors who are more willing to get into detail on what they are doing than some superintendents.  Gentlemen, it ain't rocket science.  Some of us lay people can actually understand a little bit about nematodes, hybrid bermudas, and plant science.  If you don't want rumors and bad information floating about, educate us. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

That picture of the 4th green shows dramatic wear in several places due to the green being small and having a narrowed walk off. There may be other factors, but the problem could have been helped with a larger green. if some greens are performing okay, it is not the imported mix unless there are some construction issues. If some greens are performing okay, it is largely not a bad superintendent issue.

[Brian Phillips]

That picture of the 4th green shows dramatic wear in several places due to the green being small and having a narrowed walk off. There may be other factors, but the problem could have been helped with a larger green. if some greens are performing okay, it is not the imported mix unless there are some construction issues. If some greens are performing okay, it is largely not a bad superintendent issue.

Adrian,

What size is the green?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()