The Wonderful 5th at Chambers Bay - TWANKED!

[Matthew Essig]

David, genius! But looking at the old aerials it seems that the fairway was only maintained that wide in 2007.  In all subsequent aerials the rough on the right looks like it was grown into the fairway, narrowing it by almost 40 yards.

This is true. The rough had been extended much further in then the 2007 pictures indicate. There is little change in width to the right side; the only change is sand replacing rough on the right side.

I am surprised by how much land was taken up by the bunker on the left. Compared to the old alternate green, the bunker ate up a lot of fairway on the left, especially where it tightens up.

I am fairly confident these changes will do little to the playability side of the hole. Only the minority who can bomb it can reach the choke. For the rest, there is little change. The USGA screws up golf courses. OH WELL. We all know it happens. Sometimes life sucks and you have to embrace it. Get over it and go play and enjoy some golf!!!!!!!

[Garland Bayley]

...

The only reason that anyone was on either edge of this fairway was a missed shot. NOBODY was aiming towards the edges. I am not saying that it didn't create a better angle. But there isn't a player in the world that aimed there.

There is a difference between aiming towards the edges, and playing to be near an edge. I would think there were lots of people playing to be near the edge. For lefty slicers like me it is much easier to play to be near the left edge of the fairway than the right. I beat Kalen by playing to be near the left edge all day, even when it was not to my advantage. I get a big advantage playing to be near the left edge of 14. It almost sounds like you play line of instinct all the time.

[Jeb Bearer]

Sean, of course you're right, but extreme width does allow golfers to aim away from the centre o the fairway. Not saying the edge.

It also creates a lack of definition. Even if no one actually aims for the extreme edge, it's very existence creates doubt and complacency.

[Sean Leary]

With an elevated tee, a really wide fairway on a straight hole becomes effectively quite a bit smaller. I think that 99.9% of golfers that have played the hole are hoping to hit the fairway somewhere. Garland can play it from edge to edge with his huge slice which is why he liked it. I hope Brian Colbert sees this and chimes in how he played it in the Us Am.

I have played it more than most here and played it with high cappers and top level am's. If you think non pros are truly aiming to a certain side of this fairway I think you are mistaken. They may hit it there based on a preferred ball flight but they are not aiming that precisely...

[Matthew Sander]

With an elevated tee, a really wide fairway on a straight hole becomes effectively quite a bit smaller. I think that 99.9% of golfers that have played the hole are hoping to hit the fairway somewhere. Garland can play it from edge to edge with his huge slice which is why he liked it. I hope Brian Colbert sees this and chimes in how he played it in the Us Am.

I have played it more than most here and played it with high cappers and top level am's. If you think non pros are truly aiming to a certain side of this fairway I think you are mistaken. They may hit it there based on a preferred ball flight but they are not aiming that precisely...

Sean,

That's really surprising, but you have the experience so I'll defer to you. I only visited CB once, back in the summer of '08. It just seems hard to believe that with a fairway that massive, 99.9% players were just "hoping" to hit fairway.

I'm hardly a better player, and not particularly accurate, but I chose to play well left off the tee. Maybe it is because I was already a GCA nerd (if only a lurker) by then and I knew that with a lion's mouth green, the play is to come in from the same side as the hole location. I thought the hole worked when presented that way. I guess I'm a member of the .1%  

Look, what has been done hasn't necessarily turned the hole into an abomination or a poor hole. In my opinion, they messed with a simple strategic approach that worked and altered it under the guise of increased difficulty (assumption). They went from less is more, to more is more.

Matthew Essig,

I understand what you are saying about the choke point, but I think it may come into play more often than you suggest. In those firm conditions, with an elevated tee, a 265 shot (from the middle tees) wouldn't seem that outlandish for many players. Prior to the neck in the fairway, there still seems to be plenty of width, but that would require laying up for many, not necessarily a majority, but still a considerable number. Laying up isn't inherently bad, but I don't think it was really a consideration in the hole's original iteration.

Regarding your point suggesting we embrace the change and move on - I certainly agree to an extent, but if we didn't complain about and nitpick changes we aren't thrilled with...well, what else would we do here   ?

[Matthew Essig]

Regarding your point suggesting we embrace the change and move on - I certainly agree to an extent, but if we didn't complain about and nitpick changes we aren't thrilled with...well what else would we do here  ?

SO TRUE!!!!!!!! 

[Sean Leary]

With an elevated tee, a really wide fairway on a straight hole becomes effectively quite a bit smaller. I think that 99.9% of golfers that have played the hole are hoping to hit the fairway somewhere. Garland can play it from edge to edge with his huge slice which is why he liked it. I hope Brian Colbert sees this and chimes in how he played it in the Us Am.

I have played it more than most here and played it with high cappers and top level am's. If you think non pros are truly aiming to a certain side of this fairway I think you are mistaken. They may hit it there based on a preferred ball flight but they are not aiming that precisely...

Sean,

That's really surprising, but you have the experience so I'll defer to you. I only visited CB once, back in the summer of '08. It just seems hard to believe that with a fairway that massive, 99.9% players were just "hoping" to hit fairway.

I'm hardly a better player, and not particularly accurate, but I chose to play well left off the tee. Maybe it is because I was already a GCA nerd (if only a lurker) by then and I knew that with a lion's mouth green, the play is to come in from the same side as the hole location. I thought the hole worked when presented that way. I guess I'm a member of the .1%  

Look, what has been done hasn't necessarily turned the hole into an abomination or a poor hole. In my opinion, they messed with a simple strategic approach that worked and altered it under the guise of increased difficulty (assumption). They went from less is more, to more is more.

Matthew Essig,

I understand what you are saying about the choke point, but I think it may come into play more often than you suggest. In those firm conditions, with an elevated tee, a 265 shot (from the middle tees) wouldn't seem that outlandish for many players. Prior to the neck in the fairway, there still seems to be plenty of width, but that would require laying up for many, not necessarily a majority, but still a considerable number. Laying up isn't inherently bad, but I don't think it was really a consideration in the hole's original iteration.

Regarding your point suggesting we embrace the change and move on - I certainly agree to an extent, but if we didn't complain about and nitpick changes we aren't thrilled with...well, what else would we do here   ?

Maybe hoping wasn't the right word with a fairway that wide, as it was almost impossible to miss that fairway unless you are Garland. And yes, we nerds do make up the .1 %. I just think virtually everybody that plays that hole is satisfied if they hit it solid and it is in the fairway. I just chuckle when I hear about 15- 20 handicappers playing to a certain part of the fairway like they have complete control over their ball. And those that do have that kind control are not afraid of any angle with a short iron in their hands.

[Will MacEwen]

Sean, the one hole that I religiously play to one side is Bandon Dunes #10 - to the left.

Because of the fairway width, and the relative shortness of the hole, I can "tack" across the fairway and end up either left rough, left, or left centre.  Still just a wedge in and even from the rough, I find the angle to be a huge benefit.

On longer and/or narrower holes I can't get that cute - getting it out there as far as possible and in the fairway is the best that I can hope for.

[Sean Leary]

Sean, the one hole that I religiously play to one side is Bandon Dunes #10 - to the left.

Because of the fairway width, and the relative shortness of the hole, I can "tack" across the fairway and end up either left rough, left, or left centre.  Still just a wedge in and even from the rough, I find the angle to be a huge benefit.

On longer and/or narrower holes I can't get that cute - getting it out there as far as possible and in the fairway is the best that I can hope for.

I do the same on that hole, Will.  Because it is  short and because there is no problems at all as far left as you want to go. And not blind like it is from the middle and right. There is also way more trouble with bunkers etc right. Would you aim that far left if there were a hazard or bunkers there and rightish was safer, even if the angle was better? Or if it gave you 5 iron instead of 8, but a better angle? I would bet you would not.

[Will MacEwen]

Sean, the one hole that I religiously play to one side is Bandon Dunes #10 - to the left.

Because of the fairway width, and the relative shortness of the hole, I can "tack" across the fairway and end up either left rough, left, or left centre.  Still just a wedge in and even from the rough, I find the angle to be a huge benefit.

On longer and/or narrower holes I can't get that cute - getting it out there as far as possible and in the fairway is the best that I can hope for.

I do the same on that hole, Will.  Because it is  short and because there is no problems at all as far left as you want to go. And not blind like it is from the middle and right. There is also way more trouble with bunkers etc right. Would you aim that far left if there were a hazard or bunkers there and rightish was safer, even if the angle was better? Or if it gave you 5 iron instead of 8, but a better angle? I would bet you would not.

Complete agreement.  There is no risk in playing left, and no reward in going right.  Very few holes offer such a clear choice, which is why this one stands out.
 

[Garland Bayley]

Regarding your point suggesting we embrace the change and move on - I certainly agree to an extent, but if we didn't complain about and nitpick changes we aren't thrilled with...well what else would we do here  ?

SO TRUE!!!!!!!! 

Problem is that Chambers Bay used to be more attractive to go to over Bandon from the Portland area, because of the distance and my perception of its quality. However, I do not like them putting "Chambers Basement" right where we hackers will try to play our second shots to, and other changes. So now instead of plotting to try and find time and budget to get to Chambers, I spend that plotting on Bandon excursions.

[Garland Bayley]

Maybe hoping wasn't the right word with a fairway that wide, as it was almost impossible to miss that fairway unless you are Garland. And yes, we nerds do make up the .1 %. I just think virtually everybody that plays that hole is satisfied if they hit it solid and it is in the fairway. I just chuckle when I hear about 15- 20 handicappers playing to a certain part of the fairway like they have complete control over their ball. And those that do have that kind control are not afraid of any angle with a short iron in their hands.

Chuckle all you want. There are golf holes in the world that have very distinct advantages to not being in the middle, and being closer to an edge. People are always going to try to play for those positions whether their handicap is +5 or 20. My home course has 25 yard wide fairways and this is still true. I try for those spots all the time. When it is left side, I am much more often able to achieve my goal than when it is right side.

[Richard Choi]

I strongly disagree with what Leary is saying.

I have played that hole many, many times with other folks who played the course fifty times or more and many of them knew to base the tee shot strategy on the pin placement. This is not something most layers are going to notice it playing the course once or twice a year. But it is something that reveals itself after many play.

It is tragic what USGA did this to hole.