Is Chambers Bay the Moment the Public "Gets It"?

[Ken Fry]

It seems conditioning is more important to this discussion than architecture . I talked to a few of my friends who are just occasional golfers to see if they are enjoying the Open ? They were effusive in their praise of the course and greens. It didn't bother them in the least that the greens are difficult to putt, they are used to it. The vistas, bunkering and run out of the golf ball was fun for them to watch .


Am I wrong or dies the majority here eschew architecture for conditioning . Would most rather play Double Eagle than Wild Horse?  Didn't Arnie and Jack play on some bumpy , slow greens for most of their careers, would they ask for perfect.


What a collective change . What's motivating it on site ? Please someone explain .

Archie,


I'll speak from my point of view.


Arnie and Jack won most of their tournaments on bumpy, slow greens.  They didn't have a choice.  No greens were presented as can be today.  For a Major, I'd expect true putting surfaces regardless of the color.


Frankly, I'm very intrigued by Chambers Bay.  I would rather play a course that's a bit rough around the edges, provides firm and fast conditions and options for exciting shot opportunities.  I'd also rather watch an event on a course like CB than the "traditional" US Open courses of deep rough and tree lined fairways.  The architecture is unique and mostly attractive.  I was under the impression the course architecture has been discussed extensively.


As many have already stated, this event will not win over the traditional American golfer which is a great shame.


Ken

[archie_struthers]

 


Thanks for your nice reply Ken .  Appreciate your insight !


I'm not buying that the average golf fan isn't enjoying this . It's way too much fun . Dustin just hit an awesome two putt to make bogey. Lots of cool stuff going on all day !


It's only Friday and this is morphing into all the U.S. Open always meant to us old timers, a mentally draining take no prisoners onslaught by the course against the field . Thank goodness Mike Davis seems to understand this place or it could be a slaughter . -6 , a nice mid-point that likely won't go any lower. 


I think that our guys here as a whole are way too wrapped up in the greens and fescue issue . Sure they could do better, and probably will experiment with some changes to the  greens at some later date. Let's enjoy young Mr Spieth's stellar play , as he seems to have a pretty good shot at two majors in a row! We might be watching one of the smartest golfers I've ever seen in the young Texan. 

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm loving watching play on the course but don't think the architecture suits my taste. Too much change in elevation for a walking course. A push cart would be impossible and I doubt I could stomach a Seattle based caddie for a day.


Colin Montgomery would be well suited to WD and rest up for next week. I can't believe I'm older and fatter than that. He looks exhausted.

[Garland Bayley]

For those of you that have not played the course, the green to tee walks are no worse that one of your favorites, Pacific Dunes. So please stop making fools of yourselves with your ignorant comments.

I strenuously object.  I estimate Pacific Dunes has shorter green to tee walks by 20-40%, and overall it is much easier to walk.

Actually if you measure them on Google Earth, you walk 200 yards farther from green to tee at Pacific Dunes. Whereas, I walk 100 yards farther from green to tee at Chambers. This takes into account that the time we played there together you took the shuttle for the 300 yard transition from 3 to 4, whereas I walked it.


Part of the reason it is so long at Pacific Dunes is that you have gorse patches and hills to walk around, whereas, at Chambers Bay they were in control of the shaping and could make straighter walks.

[Garland Bayley]

Disclaimer: John's in a crabby mood the last couple days.

My opinion is that Old Macdonald is a little tougher walk than Pacific Dunes, because you climb up and down two significant dune ridges on holes 3, 7, 14 and 15.  The green to tee walks are very short, though, maybe only 50-70 yards away on average.

Pacific Dunes has a couple of longer walks: 3 to 4, 17 to 18, and especially 11 to 12.  13 to 14 is a short, steep climb.

Chambers Bay's routing is much more sensible when playing a normal yardage (6500 or so yards).  At that distance the only long walks are 3 to 4, 9 to 10, and 14 to 15.  But it's hilly, and a harder walk than Pacific Dunes.  C'mon man!

I never compared the walk at Pacific Dunes to the walk at Chambers Bay. Only the green to tee transitions. However, I have expressed here many times that the only thing I consider in judging the difficulty of a course walk is the green to tee transitions, unless there are ridiculously steep holes, so much so that they degrade the quality of the golf. Nothing like that at Bandon, or Chambers since both generally have such wide corridors that the off track terrain is not that important. To me if you can play reasonable golf across the terrain, then there is no need to compare that part of the walk.

[Paul Gray]

Archie,

I absolutely agree with you about the architecture. I equally feel that the thread has, to some extent, been hijacked by people only interested in appearances. Trouble is, those morons, to borrow from Mucci, are simply reflecting the views of the vast majority of golfers. Try engaging with the vast majority of golfers about architecture and it's quite unreal just how, without skipping a beat, the golfer immediately talks about aesthetics.

It is a deeply rooted belief that quality looks tidy. It's a form of misguided snobbery which is inherent within any golfing nation where a sense of socio-economic division exists. So, the real students of architectural substance will appreciate CB, just as they'll appreciate some £10 bit of quirk with sheep for mowers.  The bottom rung occasional golfers with no delusions of grandeur will have no pproblem. They are actually, in all likelihood, the most open minded of all golfing subsets. The boys and girls in the middle though, those people that consider that they pay more than enough to belong to something of a certain orderly standard, they aren't going to accept CB without an awful lot of gradual reevaluation. Their current objections aren't anything to do with architecture. Their current objections are based on CB not conforming to what they regard as upmarket.

[John Kavanaugh]

If the course were perfectly conditioned the most simple minded of us would still have concerns about the elevation changes at a walking only course.  It is arbitrary and unnecessary to walk up a giant hill only to walk back down.  I've seen the same foolishness at Rustic Canyon, Lost Dunes and Streamsong…so it ain't new but it isn't good architecture.  And I've walked those three despite themselves.


In many ways I have always wanted to defend Chambers Bay because it is in so many ways similar to Dismal River.  Chambers makes Dismal look like a walk in the park.  Once you push the envelope so far just hand deliver the damn thing.

[BCowan]

Archie,

I absolutely agree with you about the architecture. I equalled feel that the thread has, to some extent, been hijacked by people only interested in appearances. Trouble is, those morons, to borrow from Mucci, are simply reflecting the views of the vast majority of golfers. Try engaging with the vast majority of golfers about architecture and it's quite unreal just how, without skipping a beat, the golfer immediately talks about aesthetics.

It is a deeply rooted belief that quality looks tidy. It's a form of misguided snobbery which is inherent within any golfing nation where a sense of socio-economic division exists. So, the real students of architectural substance will appreciate CB, just as they'll appreciate some £10 bit of quirk with sheep for mowers.  The bottom rung occasional golfers with no delusions of grandeur will have no pproblem. They are actually, in all likelihood, the most open minded of all golfing subsets. The boys and girls in the middle though, those people that consider that they pay more than enough to belong to something of a certain orderly standard, they aren't going to accept CB without an awful lot of gradual reevaluation. Their current objections aren't anything to do with architecture. Their current objections are based on CB not conforming to what they regard as upmarket.

Paul,

   You are misrepresenting a lot of peoples opinions on here.  A few of us hope the US Open returns to CB.  The bumpiness of the greens is not going to help that.  I don't see as many people complaining about the brown colored fairways that are playing firm and fast, it seems to be more about the greens.  With the amount of money spent and time the greens should not be this poor of shape.  Also we both haven't played the course.  The green contours from afar look to not warrant 12 on the stimp IMO.  The course that uses sheep to mow their grass most likely doesn't have it running at 12 on the stimp.  To compare winter golf (as Archie did) to the US Open conditions is beyond absurd.  Your economic stereotypes are very funny too.  I guess if you paid $300 you would like to putt on shitty greens too 

[Paul Gray]

Ben,

If you read back, you'll realise that you've just agreed with much that I've already said.

To be clear, I've heard a lot of comments about the APPEARANCE of the greens, whereas I actually agree with you that the bumpiness IS a problem. And, no, at $300 I'd want better greens too, ignoring their colour.

As for the greens stamping at 12, this is an unfortunate and extreme example of why the pursuit of ever faster greens is an unworthy modern trend. I'm already hearing comments that the contours should be softened. That would be a shame when the simple solution would be to slow things down and thereof keep the most interesting contours.

As I've said, I honestly think that the virtues of firm and fast, brown fairways can, in time, be sold to the broader public. I don't however think that can be done all the time attention is being diverted towards the aesthetics of the greens. Ultimately, I'm afraid to say then that the USGA have got this wrong because, much as I'm enjoying it, I'm not seeing this tournament as an event which will move perceptions forward.


PS: You mean socio-economic stereotypes. Economic stereotypes would suggest a behavioural rigidity in relation to income which was never implied. In essence, the socio bit gives a little wiggle room to the old British notion of class. Free to those who know it, priceless to those who try to buy it. At least get the insult right. 

[cary lichtenstein]

I think the architecture of CB makes this a far more exciting US Open then on the average, tree lined, 5" rough presented on traditional US Open courses. I have played a few of those courses and find that the most boring golf of all time. Miss the fairway and chop it out 40 yards with a sand wedge...


I love the British Open and ventured there 3 times and played each of the courses in the BO rotation 3-5 times so I could learn and appreciate each course. I've been to Bandon 3 times for a total of 15 rounds and loved every minute of it.


If I were still playing golf, I'd be on the first plane to CB for 3-5 rounds. I have a basis however. As a better player, I love the challenges of QUIRK and CB has it in spades. I love the opportunity for creativity.


Give me a local caddy. I remember my 1st shot in Scotland at Turnery at 6:15 PM on the day we landed. I hit driver on #1 and asked the caddy for yardage. He handed me a 9 iron. I asked him again nd he said to "hit the shot". It landed 20 yards short, 2 giant bounces and finished 10' from the cup. I never asked for yardage again.

[archie_struthers]

 




Ben , beyond absurd here . Yeah , the greens are spotty , and I agree with John that the walks to back tees appear too severe .  Ok , so be it.


But we're going to have a wonderful shootout tomorrow , someone could come out of nowhere as birdies are out there . We've got some great drama with Americas two most talented players with a shot to give their careers a huge boost. My analogy to having a great time playing in the winter league should be easy to see for a guy from Ann Arbor, surely you've played on semi frozen greens and fairways . Right now our boys are having to do the same kind of mental calculations on this super hard tract.


What I wouldn't give to,see Jack Nicklaus in his prime in the mix , he'd surely figure out the angles . As Paul said we are mostly here on site to appreciate the architecture , not critique conditions . Sure they could,be better , but they aren't. Golf is not a game of perfect , particularly tomorrow afternoon!

[BCowan]

Archie,

   I know what you are saying, just giving you a hard time.  I'm going to have to add you to my buddies list now   

[Jeff_Lewis]

I wanted to like Chambers Bay.
I like the idea of what happened in WA and how the USGA took a chance.
I love embracing links-style golf in the US.
Wrong architect.
Totally missed opportunity.
Its over the top.  Too much.  As they said in spinal tap, this one goes to "11". Except I think CB goes to 12 or 13.  In the hands of the right architect CB could have been a home run.  Instead, its Casey at the Bat.

Randomness is PART of golf, but it doesn't DEFINE golf.

[Garland Bayley]

If the course were perfectly conditioned the most simple minded of us would still have concerns about the elevation changes at a walking only course.  It is arbitrary and unnecessary to walk up a giant hill only to walk back down.  I've seen the same foolishness at Rustic Canyon, Lost Dunes and Streamsong…so it ain't new but it isn't good architecture.  And I've walked those three despite themselves.


In many ways I have always wanted to defend Chambers Bay because it is in so many ways similar to Dismal River.  Chambers makes Dismal look like a walk in the park.  Once you push the envelope so far just hand deliver the damn thing.

John,


Pat Mucci wants to know when you played Chambers Bay. He thinks he would have noticed if you had played and commented on it.

[jeffwarne]

I am enjoying the event-interesting shots to watch.


That said, I do wonder what the takeaway for the public is ,meaning what is it they are supposed to get?
Is it?
Always find the highest point after the green and play down?
Golf should be a 10 mike hike?
Golf should be a 7900 yard slog to keep up with the equipment they won't reign in?6 par 4's over 500?
Sure some are downhill-but how did you get to play downhill?by hiking up
Spend a LOT of money on a purpose built US Open course then putt on greens that absolutely aren't true in the afternoon?
Publicize the setup guy and his multiple choice lotto ad nauseum? (who is in complete denial about the greens)


I would love to see the USGA select a public course (or a private for that matter) and simply play the course they selected under the conditions the super provides yearly to his clientele.(and that could mean sketchy greens at a high volume muni on an ordinary budget)
I mean what are they afraid will happen if they don't intervene and hyper manage in the runup to the Open?
That the greens won't be perfect?ummmmmmm...


On its surface there's a lot to like about Chambers and many,many fun and interesting shots.
But it's just too big, large scale, and over managed for me to embrace the event.
But I am enjoying it

[Adrian_Stiff]

Chambers Bay has been a big thumbs down and bad press for this type of course. I often talk about the minor opinion in my posts and judging by the golf club talk today 95% think that type of golf is sh*t and would ditch the game if played like that.


Personally with better conditioned greens I think more people would have got it, but I still have reservations.


We need to quicken the game up and a lot of time is taken on the greens. Roller coaster golf is certainly the anti of quick golf. I am not against contour, but some of these areas that these top players need to hit to control the ball are too small.


Chambers Bay must be impossible for most amateur golfers. I am convinced that we can no longer build golf courses suitable for all standards.


What most people really love is to sit outside the clubhouse with a beer and watch golfers hit over water to the 18th green. If your building a new golf course that's almost rule 1.

[Paul Gray]

Adrian,

The hackers on this site that have played it would tend to disagree with you but I appreciate your agenda.

[Don Mahaffey]

Wasn't Chambers bay built to get and host an open more than to be a "public" course. It is public in that the public paid for it, but it was built to bring the US Open to the NW. That was even part of RTJII RFP response, build a course to host the US Open.

Besides the Open itself and all that goes with bringing it to the NW, the stories I've heard about the course have been turf issues from the start, rebuilding greens, automatic two putts, and budget shortfalls. While the NW contingent here is fierce in their defense of the course, as a whole I don't sense the love for "their" course like New Yorkers have for Bethpage Park or San Diego residents have for Torry.
I'm open to being convinced I'm wrong, but CB doesn't feel to me like a "public" course or muni golf course as much as it feels like a project similar to building a new sports stadium with public funds to attract an NFL team.

[Michael Blake]

Randomness is PART of golf, but it doesn't DEFINE golf.

I like this quote.

[Richard Choi]

I am amused that people who have never played this course keep mentioning how difficult the walk is and how impossible it is for everyday play.

You have no clue.

This is a course enjoyed by low and handicappers alike, where you can complete your round with a reasonable chance of of playing the same ball the entire round.

I have walked the course with my 12 year old daughter and she loves it. Even when she tops the ball, which is often, the balls roll a long way. She enjoys pitting the wild greens because it is fun.

I have played the course with a woman on her third round of life and she scored tens of strokes less than other courses she played. She loved how she did not have to constant look for the ball and how much the ball rolled.

This is a course that anyone who can walk can play and enjoy.

Bitch about the greens all day long, but please refrain from commenting on how long or difficult I is for hackers. This course is FAR friendlier than any US Open course to everyday golfers.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Richard - I know CB is very close to your heart. Does the ball run off 20-30 yards of those greenside slopes for everyday golf or does the height of cut stop that. Certainly from the golf club banter this morning 'it's all mickey mouse' and 'not proper golf'.

One of my main gripes about the Castle Course was that the mini greens within the greens were too small for normals to get on the right part unless they were just lucky as hardly anyone would have the skill to get to the right part and time after time the ball is repelled into three putt country by a just miss. Does this happen at CB?

The fescue grass choice for the greens seems very impractical. Do you think that they will now move away and either try bent grass or actively encourage the poa to become the dominant specie.

I

[Richard Choi]

Adrian, I would recommend you read my post on CB where I talk about sideboards.

It is a GREAT feature at CB because, at normal green speed and firmness, it makes it EASIER to play the course because it re-routes wayward shots back to the middle.

Sean Leary complains how sideboards make the course too easy to play.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Chambers Bay must be impossible for most amateur golfers. I am convinced that we can no longer build golf courses suitable for all standards.
,,,

Amateurs don't play the course from 7700 yards. Chambers Bay is quite easy for most amateurs, especially if they aim away from the bunkers. Using multiple tees allows Chambers Bay to be suitable for almost all.


Rich has played the course with someone on their third time out to play that had a great time.

[Garland Bayley]

Wasn't Chambers bay built to get and host an open more than to be a "public" course. It is public in that the public paid for it, but it was built to bring the US Open to the NW. That was even part of RTJII RFP response, build a course to host the US Open.

...

Or, perhaps if you have a talented group of architects they can build a course suitable for the public, and a major championship.


What happened with the development, was that the architects convinced the county to drop its idea for 27 or 36 holes and use the best land for a great 18. There is a lot of boring land there that they ruled out using so that they could concentrate on the best for 18. They did not build it to attract the US Open. They built it to attract a major championship, and the USGA grabbed it, because they knew if they didn't it would go to the PGA. The response to a major championship coming to the PNW has clearly demonstrated they were right to go for it, because they filled their volunteer ranks in a couple of weeks instead of several months.

[Sven Nilsen]

Bring back Congressional.  That was sure fun to watch.