Isn't Chambers Bay that rare bird..

[Matt Kardash]

... the 7th comes to mind where if you are a foot short it rolls down a hill 60 yards into either a nasty bunker or a terrible lie in the rough). ...

Speaking of Sagebrush you are describing the analog of #1 at Sagebrush.


As far as what the ball rolls back down into, I have never seen one remotely come close to the bunker on 7 at Chambers Bay, and the rough you refer to was grown for the US Open and is slated to be returned to fairway after the Open.

In one threesome on Thursday I saw all three players' balls roll off the front of the green. Two of them rolled down the hill into the bunker, one went around the bunker and went further down the hill and ended up in the thick rough. From there the player didn't get enough on it and the ball roll back down the hill and into the bunker. Then from the bunker he hit it too far and it rolled off the back of the green.

I also just want to add that I think the 16th hole is really cool. I think it's a neat short par 4. Actually kind of reminds me of the 13th at Whistling Straits a little.

[John Kirk]

Yeah, definitely not a 10, nor a 0. The golf course is a little too "Fantasy golf design" to ever merit a 10. The land is not ideal for golf and is too extreme. Add to that fact that they went over-the-top with the green complexes (the 7th comes to mind where if you are a foot short it rolls down a hill 60 yards into either a nasty bunker or a terrible lie in the rough). It's as if someone said "the 5th and 14th at Augusta are fantastic wild green complexes, let's build 18 like that!". It's too much. It makes for fun train wrecks when watching the pros, but I think some of the extreme contours would become tiresome after a while.
Compare this course to Cabot Links and there is no question in my mind which I would rather play.

Hi Matt,

I need to point out that a short iron approach to the par-5 1st hole at Sand Hills that comes up 1-2 yards short rolls 60-80 yards backwards, and requires another pitch shot.  And pretty much everybody I know agrees that is a cool golf hole.

It used to be that the 7th at Chambers Bay allowed the ball to roll a massive distance backwards, over 100 yards in some cases.  The contours were changed to push the ball right into a bunker or rough.  In fact, I'd argue that the new contouring may make this hole harder for the pros this weekend.

Not to say Chambers Bay belongs in the same conversation with Sand Hills.  If they could ever get the day-to-day conditioning consistently good, with greens rolling in the 9-10 foot range, I think it has a shot at being rated a 7.  My tastes in golf courses continue to evolve, and my primary concern or objection to the course is its massive size; it's too big, too hilly and too demanding a physical challenge, requiring five or more hours, for the typical round.  It's size and complexity also means the course uses a lot of time and energy to maintain.

But this is an inevitable byproduct of a game where the players and their equipment now advance the ball 20-25% further, with little or no loss of accuracy.  If par is to be protected, and a score of about 280 determines the national champion, then the tournaments must be conducted on courses with extreme challenges.

[Matt Kardash]

Yeah, definitely not a 10, nor a 0. The golf course is a little too "Fantasy golf design" to ever merit a 10. The land is not ideal for golf and is too extreme. Add to that fact that they went over-the-top with the green complexes (the 7th comes to mind where if you are a foot short it rolls down a hill 60 yards into either a nasty bunker or a terrible lie in the rough). It's as if someone said "the 5th and 14th at Augusta are fantastic wild green complexes, let's build 18 like that!". It's too much. It makes for fun train wrecks when watching the pros, but I think some of the extreme contours would become tiresome after a while.
Compare this course to Cabot Links and there is no question in my mind which I would rather play.

Hi Matt,

I need to point out that a short iron approach to the par-5 1st hole at Sand Hills that comes up 1-2 yards short rolls 60-80 yards backwards, and requires another pitch shot.  And pretty much everybody I know agrees that is a cool golf hole.

It used to be that the 7th at Chambers Bay allowed the ball to roll a massive distance backwards, over 100 yards in some cases.  The contours were changed to push the ball right into a bunker or rough.  In fact, I'd argue that the new contouring may make this hole harder for the pros this weekend.

Not to say Chambers Bay belongs in the same conversation with Sand Hills.  If they could ever get the day-to-day conditioning consistently good, with greens rolling in the 9-10 foot range, I think it has a shot at being rated a 7.  My tastes in golf courses continue to evolve, and my primary concern or objection to the course is its massive size; it's too big, too hilly and too demanding a physical challenge, requiring five or more hours, for the typical round.  It's size and complexity also means the course uses a lot of time and energy to maintain.

But this is an inevitable byproduct of a game where the players and their equipment now advance the ball 20-25% further, with little or no loss of accuracy.  If par is to be protected, and a score of about 280 determines the national champion, then the tournaments must be conducted on courses with extreme challenges.

Sand Hills is a par 5 with a wedge shot, the 7th at Chambers bay is playing as a 500 yard par 4!

[John Kirk]

Dustin Johnson hit sand wedge to #7 yesterday.  I think that means a good drive leaves a short iron for the best players. 

[Mike Wagner]

I would say it's polarizing, but there's no way it's a 10 or a zero. It will provide a good test of golf to just about everybody. Whether it will identify the best player is certainly subject for debate. Whether it's really a links course or a bastardization of one is more grist for the mill. It has the look and feel of a course that could reward luck as often as skill and as a course where random, quirky results could very well be a predominant factor in who is rewarded and who gets screwed.

Can you name a tournament (other than the '68 Masters) where the best player that week wasn't identified?  They're the one holding the trophy, right?

[Matt Kardash]

Dustin Johnson hit sand wedge to #7 yesterday.  I think that means a good drive leaves a short iron for the best players.

Using the longest hitter on the Tour as reference is not exactly fair. The hole is a cape, so someone like DJ can cut off a huge chunk of the hole with his length. In round 1 I was watching players hit it from around 200 yards.

[Josh Stevens]

probably not a zero but for me, it is certainly nearer to zero than to 10.

I confess I am enjoying watching the show, but that's because I like hearing the pros whine like children about how unfair it is. But for me, at least from what I am seeing on tele, this is a course that  I might play if I was driving past, if I had a free pass and I had nothing better to do.  BUt otherwise there is nothing there that looks remotely enjoyable to someone of my standard.  It just seems such a caricature.  There may well be some subtlety and sophistication there but it is just overwhelmed by the bling

[Terry Lavin]

I would say it's polarizing, but there's no way it's a 10 or a zero. It will provide a good test of golf to just about everybody. Whether it will identify the best player is certainly subject for debate. Whether it's really a links course or a bastardization of one is more grist for the mill. It has the look and feel of a course that could reward luck as often as skill and as a course where random, quirky results could very well be a predominant factor in who is rewarded and who gets screwed.

Can you name a tournament (other than the '68 Masters) where the best player that week wasn't identified?  They're the one holding the trophy, right?

There's some appeal in the simple logic of your position, but I'd put Lucas Glover, Graeme McDowell, and Michael Bradley in this category of those rewarded by a combination of stupid setup and lucky bounce victory.  Thus far this course and setup seem to be doing a better job of identifying the best player, based on the leaderboard after three rounds.  The aforementioned seem more like the luckiest or pluckiest, as opposed to the best player.

[Phil McDade]

There's some appeal in the simple logic of your position, but I'd put Lucas Glover, Graeme McDowell, and Michael Bradley in this category of those rewarded by a combination of stupid setup and lucky bounce victory.  Thus far this course and setup seem to be doing a better job of identifying the best player, based on the leaderboard after three rounds.  The aforementioned seem more like the luckiest or pluckiest, as opposed to the best player.

On the other hand, one of the worst course set-ups of recent vintage -- Davis' awful foot-OFF-the-gas-pedal St. Jude Open U.S. Open at Congressional -- crowned what many agree is the best golfer in the game today.


I would argue course set-ups and even the course itself in the U.S. Open have little to do with identifying the best player of the week. Golf as a competitive game for these guys is one in which the very best performances and the mediocre ones are separated by a very thin line. And the very best players -- notably Nicklaus and Tiger -- found ways to win majors when conditions were very difficult, quite easy, and somewhere in between.

[Mike Wagner]

There's some appeal in the simple logic of your position, but I'd put Lucas Glover, Graeme McDowell, and Michael Bradley in this category of those rewarded by a combination of stupid setup and lucky bounce victory.  Thus far this course and setup seem to be doing a better job of identifying the best player, based on the leaderboard after three rounds.  The aforementioned seem more like the luckiest or pluckiest, as opposed to the best player.

On the other hand, one of the worst course set-ups of recent vintage -- Davis' awful foot-OFF-the-gas-pedal St. Jude Open U.S. Open at Congressional -- crowned what many agree is the best golfer in the game today.


I would argue course set-ups and even the course itself in the U.S. Open have little to do with identifying the best player of the week. Golf as a competitive game for these guys is one in which the very best performances and the mediocre ones are separated by a very thin line. And the very best players -- notably Nicklaus and Tiger -- found ways to win majors when conditions were very difficult, quite easy, and somewhere in between.

Well stated, Phil.


Terry, no champion ever has simply won based on "lucky bounces" or "stupid set-ups." That's a beard pulling exercise and an insult to those guys.  Over 4 days, it takes the best execution and definitely some good breaks, but the breaks are part of golf.

[Terry Lavin]

Mike,

We can agree to disagree. The three mentioned caught lightning in a bottle.  I don't claim they didn't earn or deserve victory, but I remain convinced that there were a bunch of better players that were unfairly punished by course setup that rewarded luck over skill to too high a degree. 

[Mike Wagner]

Mike,

We can agree to disagree. The three mentioned caught lightning in a bottle.  I don't claim they didn't earn or deserve victory, but I remain convinced that there were a bunch of better players that were unfairly punished by course setup that rewarded luck over skill to too high a degree.

I don't get it.  There were a bunch of better players?  Unfairly punished?  I'm going to need specific examples, then we'll finally be able to get rid of this notion of yours. 


Think about if your case holds up in a court of law - not a chance.

[Terry Lavin]

Mike,

You're right; you don't get it.

[Mike Wagner]

Mike,

You're right; you don't get it.

Ok, Terry .. I don't get it.  You think the best player doesn't win every time.  I think he does.  End of story.

[Garland Bayley]

... the 7th comes to mind where if you are a foot short it rolls down a hill 60 yards into either a nasty bunker or a terrible lie in the rough). ...

Speaking of Sagebrush you are describing the analog of #1 at Sagebrush.


As far as what the ball rolls back down into, I have never seen one remotely come close to the bunker on 7 at Chambers Bay, and the rough you refer to was grown for the US Open and is slated to be returned to fairway after the Open.

In one threesome on Thursday I saw all three players' balls roll off the front of the green. Two of them rolled down the hill into the bunker, one went around the bunker and went further down the hill and ended up in the thick rough. From there the player didn't get enough on it and the ball roll back down the hill and into the bunker. Then from the bunker he hit it too far and it rolled off the back of the green.

I also just want to add that I think the 16th hole is really cool. I think it's a neat short par 4. Actually kind of reminds me of the 13th at Whistling Straits a little.

Matt,


My apologies if I mistakenly criticized you for your comments on #7. As John pointed out, the hole has been modified from the time when I got to know it after the course opened.


Garland

[Matt Kardash]

... the 7th comes to mind where if you are a foot short it rolls down a hill 60 yards into either a nasty bunker or a terrible lie in the rough). ...

Speaking of Sagebrush you are describing the analog of #1 at Sagebrush.


As far as what the ball rolls back down into, I have never seen one remotely come close to the bunker on 7 at Chambers Bay, and the rough you refer to was grown for the US Open and is slated to be returned to fairway after the Open.

In one threesome on Thursday I saw all three players' balls roll off the front of the green. Two of them rolled down the hill into the bunker, one went around the bunker and went further down the hill and ended up in the thick rough. From there the player didn't get enough on it and the ball roll back down the hill and into the bunker. Then from the bunker he hit it too far and it rolled off the back of the green.

I also just want to add that I think the 16th hole is really cool. I think it's a neat short par 4. Actually kind of reminds me of the 13th at Whistling Straits a little.

Matt,


My apologies if I mistakenly criticized you for your comments on #7. As John pointed out, the hole has been modified from the time when I got to know it after the course opened.


Garland

Well, I've never even played the hole, so you at least have that on me! But I think I saw enough of the telecast to get a decent idea on how the course plays (when setup to the major championship extreme).

[Carl Nichols]

And lord forgive me for creating a Muccian subject title but isn't Chambers Bay that rare bird that is either a Doak Scale 10 or a Doak Scale 0?

I don't care what it costs or what agronomists say about conditions; those things can all be fixed.  But, from a golf architecture and from a pleasurable excitement standpoint, isn't it the very antithesis of fat, flat, flabby, and predictably flaccid golf?
 
The real question is will the results on the ground this week justify the huge expenditures to create such a vast and almost experimental golf laboratory and will it succeed in providing both scintillating tournament golf and oongoing pleasurable excitement for the playing public in the long term?   
 
Eagle or Dodo-Bird?   I guess we'll soon all see.

How could it be a Doak zero? The mud pit that is the Castle Course got a zero. This is no mud pit. It cost a lot, because it was a reclamation project. Are you going to surmise the same about Ferry Point? 10 or 0?

What would you give Chambers Bay on the Doak Scale?

[Garland Bayley]

8

[Carl Nichols]

That's about where I have it.  But I'd be willing to admit it's not an easy walk and the greens didn't look good last weekend.

[Benjamin Litman]

Has anyone else cringed at the constant media comments (especially by the self-righteous John Feinstein) lauding Spieth for winning majors on "two totally different golf courses"? To me, who has admittedly played neither, Augusta and Chambers Bay share a lot of design features: width, elevation changes, and wild, sloping, fast greens. Both demand a blend of power and creativity. Sure, they "looked" totally different--in color--but I can think of many, many, many other courses that are far, far, far more different.

[jeffwarne]

Has anyone else cringed at the constant media comments (especially by the self-righteous John Feinstein) lauding Spieth for winning majors on "two totally different golf courses"? To me, who has admittedly played neither, Augusta and Chambers Bay share a lot of design features: width, elevation changes, and wild, sloping, fast greens. Both demand a blend of power and creativity. Sure, they "looked" different--in color--but I can think of many, many, many other courses that are far, far, far more different.

+1


Despite being an ardent supportoer of ANGC on this site, I might even argue that CB emobodies more of Jones' intent

[Brent Hutto]

Has anyone else cringed at the constant media comments (especially by the self-righteous John Feinstein) lauding Spieth for winning majors on "two totally different golf courses"? To me, who has admittedly played neither, Augusta and Chambers Bay share a lot of design features: width, elevation changes, and wild, sloping, fast greens. Both demand a blend of power and creativity. Sure, they "looked" different--in color--but I can think of many, many, many other courses that are far, far, far more different.

I was certainly struck by how the way balls reacted once on the green at Chambers Bay was like a scaled-up version of what happens every time the Masters is played under dry conditions. At Chambers Bay the ball might roll briskly for 10 seconds, cover 200 feet of distance and change direction three or four times before coming to rest off the green or on the wrong "green within a green". At Augusta a similar situation might have the ball trickle slowly for 6 or 8 seconds, cover 100 feet of distance and change direction just once before ending up off the green or on the wrong "tier".


But the result was similar, either a long chip/pitch/off-green putt recovery shot or else a 40+ foot putt up and over some sort of ridge or tier in the green.


The main difference being fairway bunkers (acres upon acres upon acres of them) at Chambers Bay versus pine trees and pine straw (acres upon acres) at Augusta. But in a good year the Augusta National fairways reward shaping the tee shot and utilizing contours, again not quite on the scale of Chambers Bay.


So to those who have played both    which is the tougher walk, Augusta National or Chambers Bay?


P.S. Apropos Jeff Warne's comment, one might even say that Chambers Bay is trying to be an amalgam of certain elements of The Old Course and Augusta National. Or at least those are the two major-championship venues that frequently came to mind when I was watching last weeks US Open.

[Joe Zucker]

Interesting point Ben. I didn't think much of a comparison between the two when I was watching live, but when I think about now, I can see it.  At Augusta, it is very easy to know when a ball might catch a slope and you can tell where it will probably end up. This is probably due to familiarity with the course, but also the greenness makes the contouring easier to see in my opinion.

At Chambers, the rolls and bounces looked more random and unpredictable because I have not watched dozens of rounds on the course and the brownish grass made it harder for me to see the mounds.  Somewhere in one of these threads it was mentioned that the color of the grass could have made it harder for the players to read the greens.  I think it also made it harder for me to see the slopes on TV.  I can certainly see how both courses force the player to adopt a similar mindset and think about than just the ball in the air.

[BCrosby]

Jeff Warne writes (w/ typo clean-ups ):


"Despite being an ardent supporter of ANGC on this site, I might even argue that CB embodies more of Jones' intent [/size] "


Bingo.



[/color]

[Brent Hutto]

An argument could be made that Chambers Bay certainly reflects the intent of "Jones".


Merely a matter of which Jones we're talking about.