It's simple: the Hand of Man has replaced Nature

[Peter Pallotta]

I have no particular view of Chambers Bay, other than being pleased that the Pacific NW has finally gotten a US Open. The course I know only from Richard's fine overview, the set up for the championship I know only from posts on here and interviews with Mike Davis.

But it suddenly hit me as clear as a bell: this is an American links course. Money is no object, and yet it is the object -- and after spending truckloads of it nothing can be left to chance.

So, instead of allowing nature and the wind to do what it will and affect the play as it might, and thinking about fairways and greens and hazards in that context (as in GB&I), at Chambers Bay the architect and the USGA have instead created formalized flexibility.

Here, this massively long course can be adjusted day by day by moving tees way up or way back, and if that wasn't enough the word is put out that par will be manipulated as well. Also, instead of having as the original links courses do very large and somewhat undulating (but sometimes quite subtle) greens such that they will be more or less challenging depending on the wind conditions, at Chambers the greens are massively and permanently contoured, so that every day, day in and day out, the challenge will be there.

An interesting fundamental difference in approach: very old links (for the Open) that continue to play differently from one day to the next because of nature, and a very new links (for the US Open) that can play the same every day because of the hand of man.

Peter

[jeffwarne]

I have no particular view of Chambers Bay, other than being pleased that the Pacific NW has finally gotten a US Open. The course I know only from Richard's fine overview, the set up for the championship I know only from posts on here and interviews with Mike Davis.

.....nothing can be left to chance.

So, instead of allowing nature and the wind to do what it will and affect the play as it might, and thinking about fairways and greens and hazards in that context (as in GB&I), at Chambers Bay the architect and the USGA have instead created formalized flexibility.

Here, this massively long course can be adjusted day by day by moving tees way up or way back, and if that wasn't enough the word is put out that par will be manipulated as well. Also, instead of having as the original links courses do very large and somewhat undulating (but sometimes quite subtle) greens such that they will be more or less challenging depending on the wind conditions, at Chambers the greens are massively and permanently contoured, so that every day, day in and day out, the challenge will be there.

An interesting fundamental difference in approach: very old links (for the Open) that continue to play differently from one day to the next because of nature, and a very new links (for the US Open) that can play the same every day because of the hand of man.

Perfectly put


The ManipulOpen 
played at "The Experience by Mike Davis and the Open Doctor's son and brother"

[John Kavanaugh]

The fact of the matter is that public courses have no one to stand up for the architecture.

[Tim Fenchel]

I have no particular view of Chambers Bay, other than being pleased that the Pacific NW has finally gotten a US Open. The course I know only from Richard's fine overview, the set up for the championship I know only from posts on here and interviews with Mike Davis.

But it suddenly hit me as clear as a bell: this is an American links course. Money is no object, and yet it is the object -- and after spending truckloads of it nothing can be left to chance.

So, instead of allowing nature and the wind to do what it will and affect the play as it might, and thinking about fairways and greens and hazards in that context (as in GB&I), at Chambers Bay the architect and the USGA have instead created formalized flexibility.

Here, this massively long course can be adjusted day by day by moving tees way up or way back, and if that wasn't enough the word is put out that par will be manipulated as well. Also, instead of having as the original links courses do very large and somewhat undulating (but sometimes quite subtle) greens such that they will be more or less challenging depending on the wind conditions, at Chambers the greens are massively and permanently contoured, so that every day, day in and day out, the challenge will be there.

An interesting fundamental difference in approach: very old links (for the Open) that continue to play differently from one day to the next because of nature, and a very new links (for the US Open) that can play the same every day because of the hand of man.

Peter

Amen.

[Matthew Petersen]

In all of these respects, what makes Chambers Bay particularly different from Streamsong? Just that Chambers was built with a US Open in mind?

[Sean_A]

Pietro


I take slight issue with your comparison between old Open rota links and new US links.  If the weather doesn't change, the old Open rota links play very similar each day.  I can't see an issue with the hand of man stepping in for nature when nature doesn't cooperate     But, to do this the design must already be in the ground[size=78%]  so it can be manipulated.  I can't see why built-in variety is perceived as a negative especially for a course partly designed to host flat bellies. I can understand people getting uptight if the design was compromised in some way at the expense of joe bloggs (often times the walk in the park aspect is spoiled by championship aspirations) to accomodate flat bellies.  Its a rare course which can serve two sets of criteria well.  Almost without exception the handicap player suffers when courses are deemed championship venues.[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]Ciao [/size]

[Mark Bourgeois]

Peter


1) I gave you a karma +1 for the effort
2) Chambers Bay is not a links, it's a course with fescue grass
3) All courses are about the Hand of Man. Some were built during a time when designers lacked the resources to break the land to their will entirely
4) elasticity is not a new idea


Yours,
Strict Links Structuralist

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark -

1. I needn't give you a karma +1, as your life is a vibrant testament to already good karma
1b. "Effort" is only worth it with horseshoes and grenades; around here we need to be right
2. When width and randomness and a tree-less sea-side site stop being considered links by the hoi polloi and Chambers stops self-identifying as such, I'll stop my comparisons
3. Yes, all courses are about the Hand of Man -- but hidden, either intentionally or not. With its formalized flexibility (no karma points for that gem?), have you often seem such prideful and celebratory trumpeting of what man's hand can do as at Chambers?
4. You're right, I am wrong. Elasticity is not a new idea. Are there many fine courses with this same degree and quality of elasticity?

Sean, Matthew -

Yes, as always my pen runs away with me, and the language of rhetoric has me saying more than is justified. But you know what I mean, right?

Jeff - very nicely done there.

JK - you're sort of like Mae West: when you're good you're very good, but when you're bad you're not so good. That one was a terrific insight.

[Niall C]

Peter


I think you are right in identifying what might be called modern american ideals in golf design. For all Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart are in Scotland, they are essentially American in concept. Where CB may be different this week in comparison to say CS is that the manipulation will be in order to provide variety on certain holes on a day to day basis, while my experience at CS/KB the shifting of tee positions is a vain attempt to neutralise the wind.


Niall

[Rich Goodale]

The fact of the matter is that public courses have no one to stand up for the architecture.

John

You are wrong.

Public courses do, in fact, have someone to stand up for them, and it is the public, who built the course.  The fact that the majority of the public (and the majority of the golfers who play public (or even private) courses) could give a flying f**k about the architecture is sad to some of us, and a violation of God's will to others others of us, but it is a fact.

Rich

[Mark Bourgeois]

BTW the American vs UK distinction captures some but not all of it. Perhaps "modernist" vs "classicist" or "baroque classicist" vs "minimalistic classicist" is a better division.

Anyway, and I will post this in two places, how about a moment's pause in recognition of the management's determination to stick with fescue through the (inevitable) grumblings and sky-is-fallings? That to me is a story worth telling and behavior worth praising.

Yes / no maybe?

[John Kavanaugh]

Rich,


My point being that Mike Davis doesn't listen to the public like he will the memberships of the great private courses who are most likely his friends.  I have played both Pinehurst and Torrey after the Davis setups.  It's odd, awkward and close to a waste of intellectual effort.  They are still great courses but they aren't really US Open courses when the pros tee off 100 yds ahead of the public.  You can simulate a golfing experience by moving up and having your tee shot land in the general vicinity of the contestants, you can't simulate a short par 4 from 400 yds.


He won't pull this crap where his friends will ask him WTF?!?


On a side note this is great for public golf as they will continue to get the dates.

[Rich Goodale]

John

This pushing the tees up and back is just a fad, which will die when Mike Davis decides to get his pension from the USGA, or vice versa.  The "public" is just a small segment of golfers who believe the figment of the USGA's imagination, that blares out "GOLF, the only sport where you can play the same course as the pros!!!!"  As anybody who has played even semi-seriously knows---Not!  And, of course the USGA sucks up to the members of the private clubs, because it was created and maintained to support their interests.  If you want to know the essence of the understated and even more understood and unknown underbelly of golf, read some of Tom Paul's old posts, if they still exist on this site.

Rich

[John Kavanaugh]

I would give anything to read new posts by Tom Paul.  Perhaps with the new ignore feature he will return.


I once played Riviera from the up tees with some elderly gentlemen.  It felt like I was playing the same course as the pros as I approached the greens with short irons.  I have also played from the championship tees, wow oh wow, except for driving #10 it was bizarre to say the least.


Yes you can do that shot now.  It's been a while since I bragged about Riviera so enjoy.

[Matthew Essig]

The fact of the matter is that public courses have no one to stand up for the architecture.

John

You are wrong.

Public courses do, in fact, have someone to stand up for them, and it is the public, who built the course.  The fact that the majority of the public (and the majority of the golfers who play public (or even private) courses) could give a flying f**k about the architecture is sad to some of us, and a violation of God's will to others others of us, but it is a fact.

Rich

The best example I can give is the public support of Chambers. Poulter has a target on his head for the words he said about it being a farce a couple of weeks ago. He has received countless threats of verbal abuse by the passionate 12th Man crowd reminiscent of Sergio at Bethpage (even though that was for different reasons). I fear the worst for him...