[Jason Thurman]

Tim Fenchel's post outlines the whole problem with the Chambers Bay discussion. Everyone has an opinion on the course's cost and its utility, and most of them are completely uninformed. I don't understand how someone can be a member of this site, knowing everything that's been posted about Chambers Bay in the past ten years, and write something like:

 
One of the introductory comments from John Laddenburg, previous Exec of Pierce County, was that "We have to get this 1,000 acre site open to the public."  According to the latest demographic info...about 9% of American's play golf.  That hardly makes CB open to the public.  Now, I don't know the local vibe...maybe the public is allowed to recreate (walk, hike) on the property.  It would be really great if the Old Course rule would apply...closed on Sunday's for everyone to enjoy.  But if it is strictly a site for golf...and high end golf at that...I would hardly call it open to the public.
 
It's been discussed in this thread and countless others that Chambers Bay is not just a golf course. It is a massive public park with hiking trails that go right through the course. To be unaware of this is to know virtually nothing about the development, and yet it doesn’t stop most of us from having vocal opinions about it.
 
I have never heard a Pierce County resident complain about the park at Chambers Bay. The Pacific NW guys on this site almost unanimously love the course and the park, in stark contrast to how Ferry Point has been received, for example. If the residents of the county are happy, it's probably none of the rest of our business. They got a super sweet park, a really great (if expensive) golf course, and they're about to get the economic windfall of a US Open and the course will reap the benefits of the decades of marketability that follows. Meanwhile, I'm within a 10 minute drive of three Art Hills-designed municipal golf courses that are only of use to the 4% of the population comprised of golfers without dignity. I'll take Chambers Bay in my backyard any day.

[David Kelly]

That is a shocking quote.

[Jason Thurman]

The quote that broke the internet. I'm putting myself on my Ignore List.

[Bill Shamleffer]

To answer an earlier post question about non-golfers use of the land; from what I have read and heard, Yes some of the walking paths that are open to the non-golfing users of the park do go through the golf course.


So with the "sand pit" having already required a substantial expense to be incurred by the county to do something to clean up that eyesore (which I expect had earned the county quite a few dollars through the prior decades), and with the substantial non-golfing facilities created and being used, and with keeping a beautiful waterfront property open and usable to the public (and not limited to the uses deemed best economically by a private enterprise), the $21,000,000 cost can not be compared to what one would deem as a feasible investment by a private enterprise.  In addition, just because a municipal government invests/spends dollars in an enterprise that would be deemed as financially a no-go by a private company, does not imply the municipal government is wasting the taxpayer's dollars.  If an investment is at likely only a break even endeavor, then the private business as a fiduciary responsibility to its investors to look for a better return.  Whereas, the taxpayers may be happy to invest in something that offers a quality life in their town/county, while getting a full return on their investment.


I am not being naive to know about many poorly made municipal uses of taxpayer's dollars.  But it is also wrong to think that if the investment is bad for a private company, then it is a bad use of taxpayers money.

[Howard Riefs]

Second. I just watched the video piece on the Golf Channel that highlighted the whole process from start to finish.  One of the introductory comments from John Laddenburg, previous Exec of Pierce County, was that "We have to get this 1,000 acre site open to the public."  According to the latest demographic info...about 9% of American's play golf.  That hardly makes CB open to the public.  Now, I don't know the local vibe...maybe the public is allowed to recreate (walk, hike) on the property.  It would be really great if the Old Course rule would apply...closed on Sunday's for everyone to enjoy.  But if it is strictly a site for golf...and high end golf at that...I would hardly call it open to the public.

Likely the Golf Channel piece referenced:


http://www.golfchannel.com/media/how-chambers-bay-went-gravel-pit-us-open-host

[Tim Fenchel]

Tim Fenchel's post outlines the whole problem with the Chambers Bay discussion. Everyone has an opinion on the course's cost and its utility, and most of them are completely uninformed. I don't understand how someone can be a member of this site, knowing everything that's been posted about Chambers Bay in the past ten years, and write something like:

It's been discussed in this thread and countless others that Chambers Bay is not just a golf course... To be unaware of this is to know virtually nothing about the development, and yet it doesn’t stop most of us from having vocal opinions about it.
 

My apologies, Jason.  Like I said in my new member introductory post...I'm slightly afraid of sticking my head of of the shell around here...I'll hibernate once again.

[Sean_A]

Once again, the point has been skipped over.  To create a public amenity paid for by the public purse only to then have the public access the amenity though a high price entry fee is very a dubious governmental undertaking.  I realize that we are golf wing nuts and so don't mind that our desires are looked after, but there is a bigger picture...and this isn't coming from a raving Tea Party guy....


Ciao

[Jonathan Mallard]

I just saw a tweet where David Duval noted that the USGA has budgeted 4:45 for rounds this week.


He expects them to take 6.

[Terry Lavin]

It's likely to be comic strip golf, full of perilous descents and rollicking sideways scrambles, mansized uphill thrusts and serendipitous slips down manufactured sinews, all enabled by a setup designed to identify the luckiest player.

I hope I'm wrong.

[Richard Choi]

I categorically reject that wide, rolling fairways and firm and fast conditions somehow encourages luck.

I've got a news for you. All evidence indicate that what rewards being lucky is narrow fairways and tiny greens. Just compare the roster of US Open champions against other major winners, it is by far the most random collection of nobodies among true champions.

There is no evidence that overly restrictive setup identifies the true champions the best. I am guessing Mike Davies also realized this and having tweaking setups and venues to minimize random US Open winners.

The only major championship hosted by Chambers produced probably the greatest collection of top amateurs for semi finals in modern history.

I just don't understand the desire to keep repeating random musings that is demonstrably false.

[John Kirk]

I disagree with your last post, Richard.  Plus, you're not offering any tangible evidence to support your claim.

I'd say that the list of U.S. Open winners includes many accurate ball strikers, as the tournament has been historically conducted on soft, narrow courses with deep rough.

By definition, doesn't a firm, undulating course increases the variability of the bounces, leading to less consistency of result?

Nothing wrong with that, by the way.  I like it.  But a soft, lush, narrow course is going to have less "luck" involved.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Richard,


Maybe if we look back in time, we see Francis Ouimet, Johnny Goodman, Jack Fleck, and Orville Moody.


But, in the last 20 years, I would point out that in addition to John Daly, Todd Hamilton, and Ben Curtis, the Open Championship has seen the greatest number of 'what got into him this week???' episodes.


Cue Greg Norman and Tom Watson's near misses also.

[Jim Nugent]

It may have cost a lot to build and I don't want to get into the politics of it.  It was a local issue for locals to decide. 

Did the public vote on CB?  Or did some commissioners make the decision? 

[Richard Choi]

JK, there are many different ways to measure the quality of winners of major championships, but this Golf WRX article does it about as well as I can figure where you give points for winning majors and tournaments for each major winners and then assign points to each major based on those wins.

http://www.golfwrx.com/213675/which-major-crowns-golfs-greatest-champions/

Based on this measure The Open and The Masters are FAR ahead of US Open and PGA Championship.

Setting up narrow fairways and thick rough is NOT the best way to identify quality champions.

[Niall C]

Richard


Perhaps you are confusing skill and luck. Perhaps narrow soft fairways don't identify the most overall talented player as often as say the Open, mainly due to the relatively narrow skillset required to do well at typical US Open/USPGA set ups, but that doesn't mean luck is the defining factor. After all if you win on a narrow set up because you have largely hit more fairways and greens than anyone else and that you were aiming for those fairways and greens then surely that is down to skill ?


Niall

[Jim Nugent]

Richard, the Masters is bound to have more champions as winners.  That's how they set up the field: as an invitational that is top-heavy with winners and high-achievers on the major tours. 

The PGA and US Open also get those players, but have much bigger fields, open to much larger numbers of journeymen as well.  Golf being what it is, anyone can get hot over four days.   

If the Masters didn't limit its field so much, I bet we'd see a wider range of winners there as well. 

Also, they play the Masters on the same course every year.  That gives a big advantage to those who have played there more, i.e. the champions. 

The British Open is played on a limited number of courses: 8 since 1989 if I counted right.  Course knowledge/experience again favors the champions.  And since all the courses are links, good links players have another big advantage.  The fact that 60 year old Tom Watson came within an inch or so of winning is pretty astonishing.  Is that a sign of how good the tournament is, though?     

The U.S. Open is different on both counts.  It has been played on 17 courses starting 1990.  Twice as many as the British.  The variety and playing requirements are much wider.  If you go back to 1960, I bet the difference in courses between US and British Opens gets even bigger.   

So I guess my questions are: 1) are the better results the article found at the Masters and British Open an artifact of the field and the courses; and 2) is winning the Masters or British Open actually LESS an accomplishment, given the advantages in courses and fields at the Masters and British Open?   

[David Davis]

JK, there are many different ways to measure the quality of winners of major championships, but this Golf WRX article does it about as well as I can figure where you give points for winning majors and tournaments for each major winners and then assign points to each major based on those wins.

http://www.golfwrx.com/213675/which-major-crowns-golfs-greatest-champions/

Based on this measure The Open and The Masters are FAR ahead of US Open and PGA Championship.

Setting up narrow fairways and thick rough is NOT the best way to identify quality champions.

Rich,


This is a very interesting example that leads me to one very clear conclusion based on their data and missing of one very important point.


My conclusion is that the Open Championships by a large margin determines the best golfers compared to the other events.


Here is why I draw that conclusion while the article states the Masters is the slight winner and I think it's the one major emission of relevant information they have left out.


How many players are allowed to compete in the Masters? 100? Whereas the other tournaments all have qualifying rounds where anyone could essentially get in and there are 155 participants or something like that. Already the chances are far higher on top of that how many participants are there at the Masters that are like returning champions that could never realistically win.


Simple fact those odds are much less.


I guess in this case using these arguments we can be assured beyond a shadow of a doubt that Chamber's Bay will more be more likely to produce a higher quality major winner than previous US Opens on soft narrow fairways and on top of that more aspects of there game will be tested. Not just the throwing of darts and rolling of putts.

[Jason Thurman]

Once again, the point has been skipped over.  To create a public amenity paid for by the public purse only to then have the public access the amenity though a high price entry fee is very a dubious governmental undertaking.  I realize that we are golf wing nuts and so don't mind that our desires are looked after, but there is a bigger picture...and this isn't coming from a raving Tea Party guy....

Sean, I get where you're coming from but I think you're underestimating the amenity. The park serves a lot more than just golfers, and I believe public access to the public beach, dog beach, and hiking trails is free. Those are true public amenities that serve far more people than a golf course. The park's reviews online are unanimously positive. My bet is that half of the 9% of the population that plays golf can figure out a way to play the course once a year at a rate they can afford, so ultimately we're complaining that this massive public park has one amenity that 4% of the population would like to use, but can't.


It's unfortunate that a possible 4% of the population that wants to access Chambers Bay's golf course can't, but it's hardly unusual for a government entity:


* Many major cities have tollways that make driving on Interstate highways prohibitively expensive for many residents, which is uniquely unfortunate considering that it affects something important (mobility) rather than something as mundane as where a person gets to play golf.


* Cities spend large amounts of money on libraries, and yet you and I both know at least one person from your old home state who is illiterate and therefore unfairly excluded from using the amenity.


* My own city has two huge publicly funded stadiums, and tickets to attend a game at either of them are very expensive for many families. Similarly to Pierce County's golf courses, some seats are more expensive than others. The Lake Spanaway or Fort Steilacoom seats aren't in the front row on the third base line, but they're a fine place to enjoy a day out with the family. If I want to sit in the front row behind home plate or in a luxury box, I'm going to spend a lot more than I would at Chambers Bay. Is that a tragedy considering my tax dollars helped build the stadiums? Maybe, but it's just how government spending works. The economic impact to the city has to be just as much a consideration as accessibility.

[Carl Nichols]

From the Chambers Creek website:
This 930-acre site includes over two miles of saltwater shoreline, two and a half miles of urban creek and canyon and breathtaking mountain and Puget Sound views. Enjoy a walk on the beach and public trails, play golf or dine at Chambers Bay, relax at Central or North Meadow or see the award-winning Environmental Services Building

[Richard Choi]

Perhaps you are confusing skill and luck. Perhaps narrow soft fairways don't identify the most overall talented player as often as say the Open, mainly due to the relatively narrow skillset required to do well at typical US Open/USPGA set ups, but that doesn't mean luck is the defining factor. After all if you win on a narrow set up because you have largely hit more fairways and greens than anyone else and that you were aiming for those fairways and greens then surely that is down to skill ?

That is precisely what I am arguing against. Narrowing fairways and lining with tall/thick rough adds more luck into the process. You can hit it one degree offline and end up in the exact same place as someone who hits it 3 degrees offline. In fact, hitting it 3 degree offline will have better results as they may end up in trampled down grass to hit out of.

There is no skill differentiator when you are just hacking a wedge out of a rough. Tiger or Phil hacking it out is no different than hacking it out by a qualifier.

Requiring this much precision without chances of recovery means that you are just throwing a dice to see who will have an extraordinarily precise hitting for that week. And when you are throwing a dice like that, you are going to come up with more duds.

If you want to give better players better chance to win, you want to provide more chances for recovery, where they can display their superior skills against lesser competitors. It is like any other sports games where having more possessions usually favors the better team. You want to provide more opportunities (more throw of the dice) for better players to differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack. Narrow fairways and thick rough decreases these opportunities and thus will allow more random players to win the tournament.

[Richard Choi]

Richard, the Masters is bound to have more champions as winners.  That's how they set up the field: as an invitational that is top-heavy with winners and high-achievers on the major tours. 

I agree. Which is why the results for The Open is that much more impressive.

The British Open is played on a limited number of courses: 8 since 1989 if I counted right.  Course knowledge/experience again favors the champions.  And since all the courses are links, good links players have another big advantage.  The fact that 60 year old Tom Watson came within an inch or so of winning is pretty astonishing.  Is that a sign of how good the tournament is, though?

...If you go back to 1960, I bet the difference in courses between US and British Opens gets even bigger.       

I would agree with you here if we were just talking about multiple winners of the same tournament. But the fact that The Open winners have won other PGA/Euro Tour events (where there is great diversity of courses) more than counterparts says otherwise. I would guess that the number of courses where The Open winners have won is greater than that of US Open winners.

I would also argue that the consistency of the set up (narrow fairways, thick rough) negates the variety that more courses bring. This is probably the main reason why US Open winners don't win more. There are countless variety of set ups for various tournaments. If you can adapt to different set ups better, you are going to win more tournaments.

Although in pure numbers, The Open rota is smaller, the changing conditions brought by wind brings more diversity and challenges to players than consistent set ups with very little weather change. The Open is going to force more players to adapt and bring more creativity and imagination. The skillsets required to win at more tournaments.

I think this is precisely why Mike Davis is trying to do at Chambers Bay. Unfortunately, the wind/weather is not going to bring the kind of variety that you see at The Open rota courses. So, he is trying to artificially recreate that kind of challenge by using different tees. He can also create more challenges by taking advantage of Chambers Bay's enormous greens to force players to hit different approaches.

Variety is the spice of life. I believe it also identifies better players better.

[Matthew Essig]

From the Chambers Creek website:
This 930-acre site includes over two miles of saltwater shoreline, two and a half miles of urban creek and canyon and breathtaking mountain and Puget Sound views. Enjoy a walk on the beach and public trails, play golf or dine at Chambers Bay, relax at Central or North Meadow or see the award-winning Environmental Services Building

^^^^ That is the piece of the puzzle many of you are missing. $21 million didn't JUST go to the course/9%. It was a massive project of 930 acres for all. Everyone could find something to do there.

[Niall C]

Perhaps you are confusing skill and luck. Perhaps narrow soft fairways don't identify the most overall talented player as often as say the Open, mainly due to the relatively narrow skillset required to do well at typical US Open/USPGA set ups, but that doesn't mean luck is the defining factor. After all if you win on a narrow set up because you have largely hit more fairways and greens than anyone else and that you were aiming for those fairways and greens then surely that is down to skill ?

That is precisely what I am arguing against. Narrowing fairways and lining with tall/thick rough adds more luck into the process. You can hit it one degree offline and end up in the exact same place as someone who hits it 3 degrees offline. In fact, hitting it 3 degree offline will have better results as they may end up in trampled down grass to hit out of.

There is no skill differentiator when you are just hacking a wedge out of a rough. Tiger or Phil hacking it out is no different than hacking it out by a qualifier.

Requiring this much precision without chances of recovery means that you are just throwing a dice to see who will have an extraordinarily precise hitting for that week. And when you are throwing a dice like that, you are going to come up with more duds.

If you want to give better players better chance to win, you want to provide more chances for recovery, where they can display their superior skills against lesser competitors. It is like any other sports games where having more possessions usually favors the better team. You want to provide more opportunities (more throw of the dice) for better players to differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack. Narrow fairways and thick rough decreases these opportunities and thus will allow more random players to win the tournament.

Richard


Correct, there is little difference in being 1 yard in the rough and 3 yards in the rough in that both require a hack out with no real recovery options. But the point I was making was that it comes down to how many times you land in the rough and that is down to skill and not luck. As Player said about his bunker shots, the more he practised (and became good at it), the luckier he became. Well you can say the same about being accurate with your drives/approaches. It's a 72 hole event after all. Whoever wins in the end because largely they hit it straighter than the others did so because of skill and not luck.


Niall

[Jim Nugent]

I get the sense that the people of Pierce County never voted on whether to build Chambers Bay.  Can anyone shed light on this? 

Also, I just read a 2007 article from the Seattle Times on CB.  Talking about the $20 million cost, it says,

"While working around two ridges of sand that towered 60 feet in the air, Jones and his team decided to scrape the rest of the landscape, eliminating all but one tree and moving 1.4 million cubic yards of sand off the site and then returning it to make dunes, fairways, bunkers and greens. "That," said Tipton, "is where most of the money was spent."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20070412&slug=chambers12

So it sounds to me like the county did spend $20 million strictly on the course.  That number later went up, as they spent a few million more on upgrades for the USGA events.   

[Richard Choi]

Correct, there is little difference in being 1 yard in the rough and 3 yards in the rough in that both require a hack out with no real recovery options. But the point I was making was that it comes down to how many times you land in the rough and that is down to skill and not luck.

I would agree with you if we were talking about robots who can replicate the same results over and over or if a tournament involved playing hundreds of rounds. However, when you are talking about 72 tee shots over 4 rounds, there is a lot of variability involved just based on pure luck.

Let me put it this way...

Let's say there is a tournament of flipping coins (about same percentages of hitting a fairway that is 25 yards wide like at US Open). Obviously, who wins this tournament is purely on luck.

What if there is a guy with a weighted coin that comes up heads 60% of times instead of 50%?

If there was a tournament, this guy would win for sure, correct?

Well, yes and no. Over thousands of coin flip, the guy with the weighted coin will win. However, if we are talking about only 72 flips in a tournament and there are 100 other players flipping, by pure luck, there is a better chance that one of the 100 players with a non-weighted coins will win than the person with the weighted coin. That winner will win on pure luck, not because he flipped better than the person with the weighted coin.

The narrower you make the fairway and eliminate the chances of recovery, you are increasing the influence of luck in determining the winner, not skill (and results above show it).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()