[jeffwarne]

They will have to build a clubhouse of some consequence to handle player needs for the Open, etc., anyone know what is planned and can they borrow money to build it in anticipation of revenues from the Open? 

What exactly are "player needs"?

You mean players won't play in the national Open if the lockers aren't big enpugh?

[Ken Fry]

do they(USGA) ask for input from the original architect or just do as they deem correct? Seems a bastardization of a designers work.

From knowledge of courses that have gone through prep for "other" USGA events, suggestions are made, expected to be done, at the course's expense, with no input from the designers.

No offense to any folks we have with an affiliation to the USGA but I don't understand why courses are willing to go along with the demands.  The Open events are a small portion of the tournament schedule and the "other" events are money losers.

Ken

[Terry Lavin]

do they(USGA) ask for input from the original architect or just do as they deem correct? Seems a bastardization of a designers work.

From knowledge of courses that have gone through prep for "other" USGA events, suggestions are made, expected to be done, at the course's expense, with no input from the designers.

No offense to any folks we have with an affiliation to the USGA but I don't understand why courses are willing to go along with the demands.  The Open events are a small portion of the tournament schedule and the "other" events are money losers.

Ken

Courses go along with these demands because they want the cachet that being the host of a US Open brings.  Very few people would be talking about Chambers Bay were it not for the USGA's affection for the place, plain and simple.

[Sven Nilsen]

It sounds like the chances will be on 1, 5, 7, 13, 14 and 17.  The article describes the changes to 1, 7 and 13, but doesn't say what will be done on the others.  Any guesses?

[Ken Fry]

do they(USGA) ask for input from the original architect or just do as they deem correct? Seems a bastardization of a designers work.

From knowledge of courses that have gone through prep for "other" USGA events, suggestions are made, expected to be done, at the course's expense, with no input from the designers.

No offense to any folks we have with an affiliation to the USGA but I don't understand why courses are willing to go along with the demands.  The Open events are a small portion of the tournament schedule and the "other" events are money losers.

Ken

Courses go along with these demands because they want the cachet that being the host of a US Open brings.  Very few people would be talking about Chambers Bay were it not for the USGA's affection for the place, plain and simple.

Terry,

I agree the Open brings a level of credibility and future interest to a course that drives so many facilities to do whatever needs done to attract a potential bid.  It's the other USGA Championships I get confused by.  Typically demands are placed on courses to make changes prior to hosting the event at their own expense.  Why deal with the hassle at all?

Ken

[Terry Lavin]

Ken,

In my experience, the USGA is much less demanding when it comes to its other championships.  At Beverly, we hosted the Senior Amateur Championship and they didn't demand much if anything in terms of course changes.  They expected conditions at a certain level, of course, including mowing heights and speed on the greens, but they were not asking for any trees to be cut down, holes to be redesigned, etc.  At Olympia Fields, we had to change the entire golf course for the Open.  And the membership gladly did it.  At the meeting of the members, there were all of three questions about the demands made by the USGA.  People did grouse later on, as they saw some of the changes, but those complaints all went away when the championship was done.  It was all win-win.

[Ken Fry]

Ken,

In my experience, the USGA is much less demanding when it comes to its other championships.  At Beverly, we hosted the Senior Amateur Championship and they didn't demand much if anything in terms of course changes.  They expected conditions at a certain level, of course, including mowing heights and speed on the greens, but they were not asking for any trees to be cut down, holes to be redesigned, etc.  At Olympia Fields, we had to change the entire golf course for the Open.  And the membership gladly did it.  At the meeting of the members, there were all of three questions about the demands made by the USGA.  People did grouse later on, as they saw some of the changes, but those complaints all went away when the championship was done.  It was all win-win.

Terry,

Less demanding but demanding none the less.  That's a tough pill to swallow when the course is provided for free....

Ken

[Kalen Braley]

This may be a very naive question...but exactly how is the money divided up for something like a US Open?

Does the USGA pay a flat fee to lease the course, plus give a certain % of the gate? 

What does the course get monetarily?

[Richard Choi]

Here is the overview of the changes from Brian Simpson, Director at CB...

...While there will be work done to prepare for players and spectators (example- leveling some areas to accommodate bleachers for seating), most of the upcoming projects will not impact daily golf play. Below are the projects that will impact golf:
 

Hole #1- Puget Sound

Project- Renovate existing green complex

Timeline- October 20, 2011 thru Feb 28, 2012

Impact to Golfers- Golfers will play Hole #10 two times while Hole #1 is closed for one month. Temporary green on Hole #1 for 2-3 months.

Construction Notes- Entire green will have new sod. Area short of green will be softened.

 
Hole #13- Eagle Eye

Project- Renovate existing green complex

Timeline- December 25, 2011 thru April 25, 2012

Impact to Golfers- temporary green for 3-4 months

Construction Notes- Green will increase in size by 25%. The hump left of green will be reduced in size. This hole will be played as a Par-4 during the U.S. Open.


Hole #7- Humpback

Project- Renovate existing green complex

Timeline- Approx March 15, 2012 thru April 30, 2013

Impact to Golfers- temporary green for approximately one year

Construction Notes- The green will be moved to the southwest, and the front part of it will be raised to keep golf balls from rolling off. The hump in the back of the green will be lowered. The hummock closest to the green likely will be altered.


Other renovations will include:

·         #3- teebox work

·         #8- work that will soften the landing area short of the green

·         #9- addition of new teebox that will be near the short game area

This is the change I am very very excited about. This tee will make the #9 into a legit uphill par 3 about 185 to 210 yards in length. The green is absolutely gorgeous from this angle. I have played this hole from proposed tee box area and I think it is smashing.


·         #14- addition of teebox that will add length to the Par-4

·         #17- lower tee box work

·         #18- Fairway bunker work

You can be assured that our turfcare team will work extremely hard to minimize the impact on daily golf play. The #1 and #13 green projects are set to begin later this year; please be assured that our temporary greens will be in excellent shape. You’ll be able to enjoy a “front-row seat” while the USGA course-shaper helps fine tune the first ever golf course in the Northwest to host our nation’s largest golf championship.[/i]

[Michael George]

"softened", and "reduced in size" - translation - making the course less interesting and more RTJ like.  Terrible shame.

Well, at least the USGA is not planting trees.

[Mark Saltzman]

Rich,

You know Chambers better than just about anyone on this planet.  Can you please tell us what you think of the proposed changes?  Do they make sense for Major Championship play?  Will they detract from daily play? How noticeable will the changes be?

Thanks.

[Brent Carlson]

Gents,

This year I've had the pleasure to play CB 30 or so times.  Overall I like these changes.  The course is still going to be chock full of GCA quirk and strategy.  Outside of Bandon I have not played a firmer course in America.  How many places in the US have fescue from tee through the green?  There is really nothing comparable to CB sans Bandon in the US.  I have heard this countless times this year playing with folks from out of town.

#1 - This green has never filled in; always been sparse.  CB resodded #12 and it has taken nicely.  Therefore this will improve the course.  Regarding the hump - it's being softened, not removed.  There will still be plenty of ground game on #1.  Plus it will improve the pace of play.  Trust me, this is a good thing.

#3 - Teebox work - If CB lowers the tee it will improve the hole.  You can run the ball onto this R to L sloping green.  The change will improve the hole.

#7 - I'll have to see it.  Most of the complaints were from those who had only played the hole once.  With repeated plays the hole becomes easier and better IMO.  Yes it's a ballbuster as currently designed, but this course is hosting the Open!  This green complex would give the pros fits.

#8 - Softening the green side hump - again, improvement.  The feature is nice but IMO too extreme with how F & F the green complex is.  Balls are being shed into the fescue right of the green.  #8 is currently the weakest hole in my opinion.  With a less severe hump the hole becomes a legitimate 4.5 par hole.  Who doesn't like that?

#9 - As Rich mentioned, the new tee box will be smashing.  It will be a huge improvement.  The hole looks and plays tremendous from there.  In addition CB now has an uphill par 3.  Something that has been lacking with the preponderance of drop shot par 3s.

#13 - As it is currently I have no problem with #13.  The green site is flat out hard.  It is a reachable par 5 and thereby demands skill to make a 4.  You can miss long but still birdie with a skilled recovery.  Enlarging the green and softening the hump effectively makes the hole into more of a true par 4.  I'm neutral on this change.  However it will speed up play for the average golfer.  It takes a well struck wedge to hold the green as currently configured.

#14 - Lengthening the hole?  It is already ridiculously long from the back tee, especially into the west wind.  The pros simply hit the ball a long way.

#17 & 18 - I'll have to see the changes to comment.  Really I have no idea what they're doing there.

Overall the course will be improved in my opinion.  Where else can you get such consistently firm and fast conditions?  The course has so much strategy and ground game that it is a blast to play.  And all this...in a muni.  If this course were nearer a major population center you would have to sleep in your car a la Bethpage to have a game, and you still just may someday!  I'd like to see Rich Choi chime in because he is passionate and opinionated about CB as well. 

Closing thoughts, these changes are not that big of a deal.  After the Open this course will blow up big time IMO. 

[Sean Leary]

"softened", and "reduced in size" - translation - making the course less interesting and more RTJ like.  Terrible shame.

Well, at least the USGA is not planting trees.

Just curious how it makes it more RTJ like?  I guess Rock Creek Cattle Company and Bandon Trails are becoming more RTJ like as they have softened greens as well...

[Sean Leary]

Gents,

This year I've had the pleasure to play CB 30 or so times.  Overall I like these changes.  The course is still going to be chock full of GCA quirk and strategy.  Outside of Bandon I have not played a firmer course in America.  How many places in the US have fescue from tee through the green?  There is really nothing comparable to CB sans Bandon in the US.  I have heard this countless times this year playing with folks from out of town.

#1 - This green has never filled in; always been sparse.  CB resodded #12 and it has taken nicely.  Therefore this will improve the course.  Regarding the hump - it's being softened, not removed.  There will still be plenty of ground game on #1.  Plus it will improve the pace of play.  Trust me, this is a good thing.

#3 - Teebox work - If CB lowers the tee it will improve the hole.  You can run the ball onto this R to L sloping green.  The change will improve the hole.

#7 - I'll have to see it.  Most of the complaints were from those who had only played the hole once.  With repeated plays the hole becomes easier and better IMO.  Yes it's a ballbuster as currently designed, but this course is hosting the Open!  This green complex would give the pros fits.

#8 - Softening the green side hump - again, improvement.  The feature is nice but IMO too extreme with how F & F the green complex is.  Balls are being shed into the fescue right of the green.  #8 is currently the weakest hole in my opinion.  With a less severe hump the hole becomes a legitimate 4.5 par hole.  Who doesn't like that?

#9 - As Rich mentioned, the new tee box will be smashing.  It will be a huge improvement.  The hole looks and plays tremendous from there.  In addition CB now has an uphill par 3.  Something that has been lacking with the preponderance of drop shot par 3s.

#13 - As it is currently I have no problem with #13.  The green site is flat out hard.  It is a reachable par 5 and thereby demands skill to make a 4.  You can miss long but still birdie with a skilled recovery.  Enlarging the green and softening the hump effectively makes the hole into more of a true par 4.  I'm neutral on this change.  However it will speed up play for the average golfer.  It takes a well struck wedge to hold the green as currently configured.

#14 - Lengthening the hole?  It is already ridiculously long from the back tee, especially into the west wind.  The pros simply hit the ball a long way.

#17 & 18 - I'll have to see the changes to comment.  Really I have no idea what they're doing there.

Overall the course will be improved in my opinion.  Where else can you get such consistently firm and fast conditions?  The course has so much strategy and ground game that it is a blast to play.  And all this...in a muni.  If this course were nearer a major population center you would have to sleep in your car a la Bethpage to have a game, and you still just may someday!  I'd like to see Rich Choi chime in because he is passionate and opinionated about CB as well. 

Closing thoughts, these changes are not that big of a deal.  After the Open this course will blow up big time IMO. 

I agree with everything you say here, Brent. Good observations.

[Lou_Duran]

Closing thoughts, these changes are not that big of a deal.  After the Open this course will blow up big time IMO. 

I hope you mean that its reputation and popularity will increase.  However, unless the condition of the greens improve dramatically, the repeat golfer will refuse the relatively high green fee.

[Kalen Braley]

This may be a very naive question...but exactly how is the money divided up for something like a US Open?

Does the USGA pay a flat fee to lease the course, plus give a certain % of the gate? 

What does the course get monetarily?

Mini-bump on this one.

I was wondering if anyone knew the answer to this?

Thanks in advance.

Kalen

[Sean Leary]

Closing thoughts, these changes are not that big of a deal.  After the Open this course will blow up big time IMO. 

I hope you mean that its reputation and popularity will increase.  However, unless the condition of the greens improve dramatically, the repeat golfer will refuse the relatively high green fee.

Lou,

When was the last time you played it? They are Bandon level now..

[Michael George]

Sean:

There is a great difference between the owner of a course or the golf course architect making a change to the course because they think it makes the course better and the USGA making changes to the course for tournament play.  

I am not against every change that the USGA has made to a golf course.  However, often times, the changes are made for reasons that don't concern making the  golf  course better.  For instance, many changes are made to accomodate the fans and hospitality tents.  This often involves smoothing out the terain to improve support for the tents and creating better viewing angles.  Other changes are done to avoid PGA player complaints of unfairness and allow for a "better and more fair test of golf".  Those changes are my concern.  The RTJ comment concerned making changes to the course to provide a "better and more fair test of golf".

[Richard Choi]

Mark, Brent did a very nice job of explaining the changes. I will add what I can...

Hole #1- Puget Sound: Construction Notes- Entire green will have new sod. Area short of green will be softened.

I echo Brent in that I think the resodding this green is probably the way to go. The grass has always been sparse here and based on resodded greens on other holes, this is the right way to address it.

As to softening the approach, I agree with the changes. I watched the US Am players hit what I thought was a perfectly placed shot just before the green and still watch the ball roll through the green and end up 50 feet behind the green. Either you had to shore up the back of the green to catch the rolls or you had to soften the bump short of the green. I think softening the bump is a better way to go. This is still a terrifying par 4 and even a tough par 5 even with the changes.

 
Hole #13- Eagle Eye: Construction Notes- Green will increase in size by 25%. The hump left of green will be reduced in size. This hole will be played as a Par-4 during the U.S. Open.

This change is unfortunate as the current green is perfect for a reachable par 5. But for a long par 4, it would be very very difficult as anything short is rejected into the bunker 30 yards short of the green. I would be fine with this change if they just remade this hole into a par 4 and made the course par 71.


Hole #7- Humpback: Construction Notes- The green will be moved to the southwest, and the front part of it will be raised to keep golf balls from rolling off. The hump in the back of the green will be lowered. The hummock closest to the green likely will be altered.

This is the change that really hurts. I think the current green on #7 is fun as is. Is it wild, bordering on unfair on such a long tough hole? YES! But it is still fun nonetheless. And the fact that the hole is pretty visible from almost everywhere on the course and your mind is never really that far away from dreading this hole during your early round, I thought it added very dramatic interest to the course.

They probably had to decrease the slope approaching the green as too many balls were getting collected in the same area and there were too many divots in that area (although I would have like to seen just a shallow bunker there), and they need to raise the front left of the green to make sure that a decent approach shot was not going to roll back down, but lowering the hump in the back of the green will surely make this green bit more pedestrian.


#8- work that will soften the landing area short of the green

I wish they would just use the driving range area below this hole to add more interest to this hole.


#14- addition of teebox that will add length to the Par-4

I know this is a big downhill drive, but I am having a hard time grasping the fact that they feel like they need this hole to be longer...


#17- lower tee box work

My guess is they are going to make this a bit less blind. I wish they would expand this lower tee box closer to the fence and lower.


Overall, I think other than the changes to the #7, what they are proposing is fairly mild or is a definite improvement that I agree with. I don't think it will drastically reduce the "quirkyness" of this course and its true linksy feel. These changes are not going to invite the aerial game any more than before.

I will try to report back as the changes are made and see if my initial impressions are correct.

[Dale Jackson]

I have read this thread with interest and, as usual, agree with some comments and disagree with others.  Let me relate play by one match on the first hole during last year's US Amateur to provide some idea of why at least some of the changes are being made.

I was fortunate enough to be a rules official at the tournament and in the second round of match play refereed a match that ended up going to extra holes.  On the first extra hole both players hit identical and ideal drives long and down the left side of the fairway.  Both knew the course well, they had played it at least 4 times by then, and knew they could not land their second shots on the green and have any hope of remaining.  They also knew that, because of the tilt to the fairway directly in front of the green, they would need to start the ball right and land it well short. Both hit what seemed to be perfect approach shots.  In fact, I was concerned they may have played too far right and would be in the rough.  I was standing with the players as they discussed their shots with their caddies before they played their seconds and walked with them after they played their shots.  Both, in my view, correctly analyzed their situation and options, and selected the correct course of action.

Of course, the balls of both players landed short and right, rolled across the green and rolled down the bank to the left of the green and ended approximately 70 - 80 yards from the hole.  On that day it was not physically possible to have a ball come to rest on the first green in two strokes.  In fact, I do not believe it was possible to end up within 50 yards of the green and not be in deep rough.

Now some may not have a problem with that outcome but IMO champions should be identified by their ability to think correctly and execute correctly and on that hole the person who did both met the same fate as someone who blindly played two shots without proper analysis or execution.  

Based on what I saw, the changes to #1 are welcome.

[Michael George]

Dale:

The same result occurs on #1 and #10 at Oakmont every time the open is played there, as it is next to impossible to stop a ball on those greens.   IMHO, that is golf sometimes.  However,  I fully understand your belief as well.  I don't think either of us are 100% correct.

[Jason Mandel]

I have to caution everyone that is criticizing the USGA here on these changes. Believe me, Chambers Bay is an AWESOME course that is not going to suffer from minor changes. Mike Davis and his team were at Chambers for the entire week studying with great detail the play and looking at all options. If you want the course to play firm and fast, and Chambers can really play as fast as they want it to play, these were changes that will only enhance the course.

As those of us that were at the Amateur have and will attest to, #1 green was the #1 priority of things that NEEDED to be changed. The hole was pretty much unplayable especially for the qualifying rounds in the afternoon.

#7 is a really neat hole, and if they wanted to move the tees up so guys could hit 7,8 or 9 irons in, they they wouldn't have to totally change the green, but at the current length something needed to be done.

#8 is probably my least favorite hole out on the course, but it does have a wonderful green.

#9 from what Richard and others are saying, I assume you would now walk down to the tee box and play to an uphill 9th? WOW, that will totally change the hole and probably for the better.

Other then that the changes sound pretty minor. If they get the course running firm and fast like it was at the Amateur, this is going to be a US OPEN like we've never seen before.

Jason

[Lou_Duran]

Closing thoughts, these changes are not that big of a deal.  After the Open this course will blow up big time IMO. 

I hope you mean that its reputation and popularity will increase.  However, unless the condition of the greens improve dramatically, the repeat golfer will refuse the relatively high green fee.

Lou,

When was the last time you played it? They are Bandon level now..

4/12/11

I played all four courses at Bandon in mid-March.  Even Old Mac's greens were exponentially better.  A number of Chambers's greens had little plant life above the surface, though I could feel some root structure below the sand.  They were improved marginally from my prior visit in the fall of 2008, when a number of them (the ones at higher elevations) were little more than loose sand on 30%+ of the surfaces.  Hopefully they're on the right track now.

[Michael George]

Jason:

I think your point is a good one.  I want to be clear.  I have no idea whether the changes to Chambers Bay are good ones or not.  And as I have said, sometimes the USGA has some good changes and I am hopeful in this case. In fact, I think Mike Davis in general does a good job.

My concern is a general one about a golf course and its architect giving control to the USGA to do what they wish to the golf course.  Especially in this economic climate, there is intense pressure on clubs to go after the Open and I cannot blame them for doing so.  I just hope that great and interesting features that some might find quirky are not removed for hospitality or fairness reasons because those features are what I love about many golf courses.  For instance, if the Open were ever at Old MacDonald, i would hate for the USGA to make 1 single change to #7, but would be fearful that they would level out areas on top of the hill by the green to have more collection areas - which I would find tragic.  

I don't know if the USGA has this rule, but it should.  If the architect is alive, he should be consulted on all changes to the course and provided great deference on issues of dispute.  

[Richard Choi]

Lou, a lot of what you have seen is due to aggressive sanding schedule that CB has. If you saw CB in the middle of the summer between the sandings, you would have noticed that there really isn't much conditioning difference between CB and Pacific, Bandon or Old Mac (Bandon Trails conditioning is another matter).

I have been to Bandon twice in over last 18 months and CB all year. I can attest that there isn't a significant difference in conditioning between Bandon courses and CB.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()