[Matthew Essig]

...played like this?


A downhill, dogleg par 4 that would use the old driving range.
The length of the hole is 460 from the backs to the not-quite-in-the-center-of-the-green-spot (distance from tee to drive zone point is a little more than 300 yards)
The prevailing wind is into on the tee shot and right to left on the approach.
There is already a bunker left of where the green site is, and there would be falloffs behind and to the right (there could also be a small false-front).
The green slopes from back-left to front-right, with a shelf back-left causing an extremely difficult back-left hole location, but causing a backboard front-left and a slope that would feed balls to a back-right hole location that has the falloffs behind and to the right.

It would also allow for another set of tees on 9, which would allow for the drop shot aspect of the hole to be nonexistent from the large front tee (there is going to be a new tee for the US Open there anyway).

[Carl Nichols]

Wouldn't you have to  hike all the way up the hill from the new 8th green to the existing 9th tees?  At least right now you cover that ground gradually when you play 8.  (I agree, by the way, that the current 8 is probably the weakest hole on the course.)

[Matthew Essig]

Wouldn't you have to  hike all the way up the hill from the new 8th green to the existing 9th tees?  At least right now you cover that ground gradually when you play 8.  (I agree, by the way, that the current 8 is probably the weakest hole on the course.)

For the tees way back, yes. But if all they used was the 3 closest to the green, it would not be bad. Remember, it is just a drawing.

[Evan Louden]

Hmm...

I actually don't mind 8 the way it is. It's a mental challenge to ignore the huge cliff/expanse/gorgeous view to right and hit three long/straight shots. Better not let any of them leak right a little bit .

What about both? The old hole and your new hole depending on which tees are being used for 9?

[Matthew Essig]

Hmm...

I actually don't mind 8 the way it is. It's a mental challenge to ignore the huge cliff/expanse/gorgeous view to right and hit three long/straight shots. Better not let any of them leak right a little bit .

What about both? The old hole and your new hole depending on which tees are being used for 9?

IMHO, the 8th hole is too out-of-place and the hole is so architecturally boring.

However, your plan of having both and using them depending upon which tees are used on 9 is perfect.

[Scott Weersing]

The 8th hole, in it present state, could be considered a connecting hole. A connecting hole gets you from one place of the course and sets up the next hole. For example, No. 3, No. 12 and No. 15 at Pacific Dunes could be considered connecting holes. The green complexes at Pacific make the holes memorable but each one sets up a better hole, No. 4, No. 13 and No. 16.

So what to do about no. 8 at Chambers Bay?

The problem with your alternative routing is that is sets up another dog leg left. It would be like no. 14 on the back nine.

I think they could redo the green on no. 8 to make it more memorable. Or make it a true three shooter by having the fairway go down and then back up to the current no. 8 green. Imagine if no. 8 was a dog leg left par 5 back up the hill? Yeah, it is too late now to move that much dirt but it would be an interesting par 5 that would take a big shot up the hill to reach the green.

I think it would have worked to have no. 8 as a par 3 and then no. 9 as a par four. I am not a fan of no. 9 as it not really a links hole with it elevated tees.

[Matthew Essig]

The 8th hole, in it present state, could be considered a connecting hole. A connecting hole gets you from one place of the course and sets up the next hole. For example, No. 3, No. 12 and No. 15 at Pacific Dunes could be considered connecting holes. The green complexes at Pacific make the holes memorable but each one sets up a better hole, No. 4, No. 13 and No. 16.

So what to do about no. 8 at Chambers Bay?

The problem with your alternative routing is that is sets up another dog leg left. It would be like no. 14 on the back nine.

I think they could redo the green on no. 8 to make it more memorable. Or make it a true three shooter by having the fairway go down and then back up to the current no. 8 green. Imagine if no. 8 was a dog leg left par 5 back up the hill? Yeah, it is too late now to move that much dirt but it would be an interesting par 5 that would take a big shot up the hill to reach the green.

I think it would have worked to have no. 8 as a par 3 and then no. 9 as a par four. I am not a fan of no. 9 as it not really a links hole with it elevated tees.

Yes, 14 is a dogleg left, but 7 and 13 are dogleg rights.

[Brian Colbert]

The hill the players would need to walk up to get to the 9th tee is pretty much as severe as it gets. This would also require an alteration to the short game area which is pretty much adjacent to the green you have placed.

When I played at Chambers I enjoyed the view on the 8th hole and thought it was a pretty intimidating par 5. That also would probably change where they had "tournament central" since the US Am had all of the hospitality, etc. on that old driving range if I remember correctly. There are other more crippling areas of the golf course (1st and 7th greens come to mind immediately) that need to be changed before they worry about 8. And if they have it set up as firm and fast as they had it in 2010, forget about it!

[Garland Bayley]

It the 8th took that routing, there would be lots of broken windows in the lodge.

[Garland Bayley]

Fairway is narrowed to about half width. Lower fairway is built full width. Steep drop between indicated by lines. If Mike Davis wants a bunker to confuse the layup, he gets a sand ravine that drains from upper fairway to lower fairway. Ideal approach positions on upper fairway must flirt with sand ravine that is every bit as deep as Chambers Basement. Approaches from lower fairway have back stop behind and right of green. Green side bunker is pretty much out of play from there. However, greenside bunker complicates approaches from shorter route (upper fairway).

[Matthew Essig]

I redid the tee boxes on 9 since some people were complaining about the hike you would have to trek up, and that the short game area was in the way, even though there is a short game area over at the new driving range. The back tee box is 165 yards. The hike up to the tee boxes on 5 is harder than the walk up to the new tee boxes.

[Alex Miller]

Fairway is narrowed to about half width. Lower fairway is built full width. Steep drop between indicated by lines. If Mike Davis wants a bunker to confuse the layup, he gets a sand ravine that drains from upper fairway to lower fairway. Ideal approach positions on upper fairway must flirt with sand ravine that is every bit as deep as Chambers Basement. Approaches from lower fairway have back stop behind and right of green. Green side bunker is pretty much out of play from there. However, greenside bunker complicates approaches from shorter route (upper fairway).

Love it Garland!

My only qualm is having the greenside bunker on the left does not reward those who find the upper fairway. Putting one on the right (if you want one at all) would make more sense to me.

[Garland Bayley]

Alex,

The philosophy is challenge the stick, give the dub a fighting chance. See the principles of Lowe, Colt, or Macan, for example.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()