Unnecessary compromises at Chambers Bay

[mike_beene]

Fox didn't do anybody any favors televising Jason Day's entire painful walk from 3 green to 4 tee on Sunday. At that point they had deemed the group in front irrelevant so we weren't seeing many of their shots anyway.

[DMoriarty]

Please point me to such a post. I can't find one.

Steve Lovett has played the course.  So has David Kelly.

[Garland Bayley]

... The length of the overall walk and distance between many holes are worse than you'll find at many subdivision golf courses. ...

Pure Bunk!

I've been there and played it. I love the golf course but it's absolutely true in places.


Again - If you have a blank canvas why would you choose to have two walks in excess of 200-yards from green to tee? Why would you choose to create such an awkward arrival sequence between clubhouse, starter, practice range? If you want a major tournament why wouldn't you choose to create at least an adequate (and safe) spectator experience?


What was gained by choosing these compromises?

Is Pacific Dunes like a subdivision routing? There are long walks there too. Some of the long walks there have a snack shop located between the green and tee, just like at Chambers. I calculated the walk at Pacific Dunes to be 1660 yards, only 100 yards less than at Chambers Bay. Since Tom participates here, perhaps you can ask him why he created so much walking between the holes.


I suspect Tom's answer would be the same as RTJ's, to create the best holes.

[Garland Bayley]

Please point me to such a post. I can't find one.

Steve Lovett has played the course.  So has David Kelly.

There is a difference between saying "it was a difficult and awkward walk" and saying it is worse than subdivision courses. Unless of course you also say Pacific Dunes is worse than subdivision courses.

If a golfer finds it to be a difficult walk, to me that is a reflection on the golfer. I have no problem with such admissions by golfers. If they say it is worse than a subdivision that is an incorrect reflection on the golf course.

Saying it should be an easy walk because it was built in a flat gravel pit is just wrong, since the flat gravel pit was avoided in the routing.

[DMoriarty]

Garland, Thanks for making my point for me.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, Thanks for making my point for me.

You are most welcome! But, I am surprised that you concur with Pacific Dunes being worse than a subdivision course.

[Sven Nilsen]

The premise of the thread is that the comprises were unnecessary.  Make the case that a better or equal course could be built without the compromises, and you have something.  Until then, perhaps we should be talking about the necessary compromises, and what was gained by having them.

[Mike Hendren]

Trying to dig out of my apologist hole, I did term the walk "rigorous"elsewhere.  I agree with Tom that it's not a "good" walk.  For a good walk, try Tacoma Country and Golf Club nearby.  It might make my top 5 clubs to join given its beauty and simplicity.  I'd like to see more discussion on it. 
 
As for the title of this thread "Necessary" compromises at Chambers Bay might be a better title.  I do think the architects deserve more credit for siting the first and 10th tees, rather than starting at the top and pandering to the golfer with a stunning opening tee shot and requiring the de rigueur uphill finisher (Augusta, Cypress Point, Shinnecock).  They also managed to finish down by the water - perhaps RTJ tired of the criticism of Spyglass Hill.
 
Boges

[Steve_Lovett]

Trying to dig out of my apologist hole, I did term the walk "rigorous"elsewhere.  I agree with Tom that it's not a "good" walk.  For a good walk, try Tacoma Country and Golf Club nearby.  It might make my top 5 clubs to join given its simple beauty and simplicity.  I'd like to see more discussion on it. 
 
As for the title of this thread "Necessary" compromises at Chambers Bay might be a better title.  I do think the architects deserve more credit for siting the first and 10th tees, rather than starting at the top and pandering to the golfer with a stunning opening tee shot and requiring the de rigueur uphill finisher (Augusta, Cypress Point, Shinnecock).  They also managed to finish down by the water - perhaps RTJ tired of the criticism of Spyglass Hill.
 
Boges

I'm giving the architects a lot of credit - and I agree about the locations of the 1st and 10th tees. They are really terrific and memorable holes (actually, I don't think there's a weak hole at Chambers Bay). The quality of the golf itself wasn't compromised - I think it's a great golf course and a worthy championship venue.


My point was - if you have a blank canvas and are aspiring to host a US Open, why not make the gallery experience at least average.


If you're going to operate a public facility, why create a place that requires a staff member to drive you in a van from the clubhouse to the starter building - then another van that transports you to the practice facility and back? That's a huge intentionally built-in operational inefficiency.


If you're going to build a walking-only course, why have two green-to-tee walks in excess of 250-yards?

These seem like really big, fundamental compromises to the purpose of the place....[/size][size=78%]  [/size]

[Brent Hutto]

My point was - if you have a blank canvas and are aspiring to host a US Open, why not make the gallery experience at least average.


If you're going to operate a public facility, why create a place that requires a staff member to drive you in a van from the clubhouse to the starter building - then another van that transports you to the practice facility and back? That's a huge intentionally built-in operational inefficiency.

Honestly, Steve. I believe nowadays everyone from the USGA to the Pierce County poobahs to RTJ Jr. simply have no concept of building courses without "built-in operational inefficiency". At the level those guys are operating, some trunk-slammer showing up and wanting to go from his car to the course, walk a round with his push cart and get back in the cart with a minimum of fuss and bother...well that's not even dreamt of in their philosophy. They don't operate in a world where such concerns matter.


Because if that's not true, there's just no reason that not only Chambers Bay but every other course of note built in the past couple decades are set up to absorb money, labor, time and complication like they do irrigation water.

[Matthew Essig]

Trying to dig out of my apologist hole, I did term the walk "rigorous"elsewhere.  I agree with Tom that it's not a "good" walk.  For a good walk, try Tacoma Country and Golf Club nearby.  It might make my top 5 clubs to join given its simple beauty and simplicity.  I'd like to see more discussion on it. 
 
As for the title of this thread "Necessary" compromises at Chambers Bay might be a better title.  I do think the architects deserve more credit for siting the first and 10th tees, rather than starting at the top and pandering to the golfer with a stunning opening tee shot and requiring the de rigueur uphill finisher (Augusta, Cypress Point, Shinnecock).  They also managed to finish down by the water - perhaps RTJ tired of the criticism of Spyglass Hill.
 
Boges

I'm giving the architects a lot of credit - and I agree about the locations of the 1st and 10th tees. They are really terrific and memorable holes (actually, I don't think there's a weak hole at Chambers Bay). The quality of the golf itself wasn't compromised - I think it's a great golf course and a worthy championship venue.


My point was - if you have a blank canvas and are aspiring to host a US Open, why not make the gallery experience at least average.


If you're going to operate a public facility, why create a place that requires a staff member to drive you in a van from the clubhouse to the starter building - then another van that transports you to the practice facility and back? That's a huge intentionally built-in operational inefficiency.


If you're going to build a walking-only course, why have two green-to-tee walks in excess of 250-yards?

These seem like really big, fundamental compromises to the purpose of the place....[/size][size=78%]  [/size]

The clubhouse, which isn't really one; it is just a pro shop and a grill, was built on top of the cliff just off the street. The first van takes you down so you don't have an uphill slog finish to the "clubhouse." The second one to the range is very new because that range is new. The old range was below 8 where a lot of the tents were.

[Sven Nilsen]

To call this site a blank canvas is a bit off base.

[Sven Nilsen]

One of the "necessary compromises" that has received little discussion on this thread is the fact that course also serves as a public park.  There are walking paths through the course, which seemed to receive a good deal of use when I've played there.


Part of the spectator issue is a direct result of these paths, and the design decisions that were made as part of their implementation.  The paths run between a number of holes, and in order to protect those using them a bit of containment mounding was built.  The pedways run through the lower area of the course around holes 2, 3, 6, 12, 15, 16 and 17, but in order to isolate the park aspect from the playing corridors, there is almost a double separation between many holes, creating a feeling that holes exist in isolation from those they are alongside. 


During the tournament, these paths served as the major spectator thoroughfares throughout the course.  But because they are set slightly below grade, and often with mounding between them and adjacent fairways, it was nearly impossible to watch play without finding a vantage point on higher ground.


Any discussion of how Chambers lacks in "stadium golf" needs to take into account the dual nature of the use of this property.  We often talk about the "other 51 weeks of the year," and here is one example where the needs during that time were taken into account.

[Steve_Lovett]

Trying to dig out of my apologist hole, I did term the walk "rigorous"elsewhere.  I agree with Tom that it's not a "good" walk.  For a good walk, try Tacoma Country and Golf Club nearby.  It might make my top 5 clubs to join given its simple beauty and simplicity.  I'd like to see more discussion on it. 
 
As for the title of this thread "Necessary" compromises at Chambers Bay might be a better title.  I do think the architects deserve more credit for siting the first and 10th tees, rather than starting at the top and pandering to the golfer with a stunning opening tee shot and requiring the de rigueur uphill finisher (Augusta, Cypress Point, Shinnecock).  They also managed to finish down by the water - perhaps RTJ tired of the criticism of Spyglass Hill.
 
Boges

I'm giving the architects a lot of credit - and I agree about the locations of the 1st and 10th tees. They are really terrific and memorable holes (actually, I don't think there's a weak hole at Chambers Bay). The quality of the golf itself wasn't compromised - I think it's a great golf course and a worthy championship venue.


My point was - if you have a blank canvas and are aspiring to host a US Open, why not make the gallery experience at least average.


If you're going to operate a public facility, why create a place that requires a staff member to drive you in a van from the clubhouse to the starter building - then another van that transports you to the practice facility and back? That's a huge intentionally built-in operational inefficiency.


If you're going to build a walking-only course, why have two green-to-tee walks in excess of 250-yards?

These seem like really big, fundamental compromises to the purpose of the place....[size=78%]  [/size]

The clubhouse, which isn't really one; it is just a pro shop and a grill, was built on top of the cliff just off the street. The first van takes you down so you don't have an uphill slog finish to the "clubhouse." The second one to the range is very new because that range is new. The old range was below 8 where a lot of the tents were.

I consider the pro shop/grill to be the clubhouse - no doubt it would be an impossible walk up the hill to that location. It's an awesome location for dining, but I'm wondering if someday there will be consideration to moving parking/proshop/check-in down the hill where the starter/caddy building is now?


Does anyone know, will they be reverting back to use the old range down the hill from 8 post-open?

[Steve_Lovett]

One of the "necessary compromises" that has received little discussion on this thread is the fact that course also serves as a public park.  There are walking paths through the course, which seemed to receive a good deal of use when I've played there.


Part of the spectator issue is a direct result of these paths, and the design decisions that were made as part of their implementation.  The paths run between a number of holes, and in order to protect those using them a bit of containment mounding was built.  The pedways run through the lower area of the course around holes 2, 3, 6, 12, 15, 16 and 17, but in order to isolate the park aspect from the playing corridors, there is almost a double separation between many holes, creating a feeling that holes exist in isolation from those they are alongside. 


During the tournament, these paths served as the major spectator thoroughfares throughout the course.  But because they are set slightly below grade, and often with mounding between them and adjacent fairways, it was nearly impossible to watch play without finding a vantage point on higher ground.


Any discussion of how Chambers lacks in "stadium golf" needs to take into account the dual nature of the use of this property.  We often talk about the "other 51 weeks of the year," and here is one example where the needs during that time were taken into account.

Great point on the public paths. They're an important part of the overall park amenity and I can attest to their heavy use and popularity.

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps some specific examples could be inserted to where the walk is "less than desirable".
#1 green to 2.  Odd transition here, longer than it needs to be.
#3 green to 4.  By far the worst example of a long walk that could have been avoided by a better routing.
#9 green to 10.  This could be the most forgiveable as most returning 9 courses have a bit of a walk here.
#14 green to 15.  This whole interchange is just awkward, much less trying to figure out which tee is in play.
#18 back to snack shack.
 
I would agree with Garland, the course is not 10 miles on a straight line...I measured it a few years ago after playing it, and while it was long, it was only about 6 miles.

[Kalen Braley]

My biggest beef with the routing is #8.  After going up the hill to #7, it seems like it would have been best to go back down the hill and put the green somewhere down on the flat and avoid that entire 8 green and #9 tee box area. 
#9 Could have been placed where the current practice area is north of the snack shack, and the practice area to the south east of it. And the snack shack moved further west on a line to 18 green.

[Garland Bayley]

...
If you're going to build a walking-only course, why have two green-to-tee walks in excess of 250-yards?
...

My measurements show only one in excess of 250 yards, and they give you a ride for that one.


If you are building Pacific Dunes as a walking-only course, why have five green-to-tee walks in excess of 150 yards?
(When lower 9th green is used).

[Dwight Phelps]

I have no clue as to the veracity of this statement, but when I was there for the Wednesday practice round, I ran into multiple folks that said that the viewing experience was better for the US Am a few years back, largely because the dunes that were hiding holes during the Open were actually open for spectators during the Am.  However, there were apparently a number of significant health issues (broken legs, ankles) that forced the USGA to not allow spectators on the dunes for the Open.  No source, just what I heard.  Made some sense as I stood on the course.

[Garland Bayley]

I have no clue as to the veracity of this statement, but when I was there for the Wednesday practice round, I ran into multiple folks that said that the viewing experience was better for the US Am a few years back, largely because the dunes that were hiding holes during the Open were actually open for spectators during the Am.  However, there were apparently a number of significant health issues (broken legs, ankles) that forced the USGA to not allow spectators on the dunes for the Open.  No source, just what I heard.  Made some sense as I stood on the course.

That's my understanding too. When I attend tournaments, I always wear my golf shoes, because I know I won't be walking the fairways (just like when I'm playing )

[Bill_McBride]

I really like Bandon Trails, but I think the difficult walk is a fair knock against it. They did the best they could, but it is nonetheless a tough walk, and the toughest of the bunch there. 

I can't comment on the walk at Chambers, but I don't think that its defenders are doing the reputation of the course any favors.

Brandon Trails is an easy walk IF they have the shuttle from 13 green to 14 tee.   Otherwise a piece of cake. 

[Tom_Doak]

If you are building Pacific Dunes as a walking-only course, why have five green-to-tee walks in excess of 150 yards?
(When lower 9th green is used).

Garland:


Pacific Dunes has been open for 14 years, and in that time I've hardly had anyone complain to me about the walk.  The "excessive" walks you mention are as follows:


#3 to #4 - Finding the natural site of #3 green meant a big walk back to #4 tee.  It's the most beautiful walk on the golf course, right along the cliff tops when you get to the ocean for the first time; one of the competitors at the Women's Four-Ball said she cried when she saw it the first time.  I don't think she meant she cried because the walk was too long.  [P.S.  Just guessing, but I think that first walk at Chambers Bay from #3 to #4 has a more negative impact on people's perceptions than it should because it is NOT a pretty walk ... you can't see where you're going and it takes a long time to get there, so it sets the tone the wrong way.  The walk at Pacific Dunes does not.]


#9 lower green to #10 lower tee - Using the lower green as an alternate meant you'd have to walk up over the hill to get to the 10th tee.  I just liked the lower green site that much to say ok.


#11 to #12 - This is the only one we really didn't like.  Originally we intended the back of #5 tee to be used for #12 tee, but we decided we just couldn't trust players not to short-cut down #4 fairway.  It's a less than ideal transition.


#13 to #14 - The location of #13 green was landlocked by the cliff and the huge sand dune.  Walking backward off the green is a compromise, but again, we're doing it at the most dramatic point on the golf course.  Nobody ever minds.


#17 to #18 - Early in the routing process there were two holes after #17, and the walk wasn't going to be as long; but by the time we sorted out that #18 should be a par five, everyone was pretty fond of #17 as it was, so we didn't change #17 to tighten up the walk.  My apologies!


Sorry you don't like the course.  Luckily for me, most people do, so the green-to-tee walks have never been a sore subject.

[Garland Bayley]

If you are building Pacific Dunes as a walking-only course, why have five green-to-tee walks in excess of 150 yards?
(When lower 9th green is used).

...
Sorry you don't like the course.  Luckily for me, most people do, so the green-to-tee walks have never been a sore subject.

WOW! Once again I wasn't expecting that from you. I know your logic abilities are better than that. I like Pacific Dunes. Never said I didn't like the course. I wrote that I considered Bandon Trails a good walk. If I like the walk at Bandon Trails, what logic would say I didn't like the walk at Pacific Dunes?


If your saw my other posts you would have seen that I had already answered my question. My supposed answer was that you had the long walks, because you wanted the best golf holes. Nothing wrong with that.

[Tom_Doak]

WOW! Once again I wasn't expecting that from you. I know your logic abilities are better than that.

My logic abilities are better than that.  I'm just tired of you dragging my course into your defense of Chambers Bay, and diverting the conversation; and if you're going to ask an open question about my course, I'm not going to let you answer it for me. 


I think Chambers Bay is a very good course, and I feel bad for them that it was bashed so hard last week for trying to present a different playing surface.  But, respectfully, just stop using Pacific Dunes as a counter-example, unless you can find somebody else who thinks Chambers Bay is a better walk than Pacific Dunes, a position which I've seen no one else agree with so far. 

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

In your shoes I would probably demure from the question, but I am interested in reading what you think were unnecessary compromises at Chambers Bay. You have provided an unusual solution to a severely sloped property at Stone Eagle. You have also spoken before on compromises to hole-to-hole transitions to bolster the quality of a green site or teeing ground. This isn't a "what would Tom Doak do" question. I am more interested in identifying aspects of the routing that are less obvious in nature.