[Matthew Essig]

                 



That is more than a tweak, which Mike Davis said all the changes were supposed to be. This has completely changed the hole. The biggest change is the slope in front isn't nearly as severe as it was before. The right side is much much flatter, the new bailout area. The side board on the left is now a collection area. The green isn't as severe, too. What are your first reactions and thoughts?

[Ronald Montesano]

Probably did it now so that Hawtree's great-grandson won't suffer through the indignity of a GCA attack 100 years from now...

[Jeb Bearer]

What is the strategy of the hole? What did the original green look like and how did that fit in with decision making on the hole?

[Greg Gilson]

Matthew, thanks for poting these pics. I played CB only twice across 2 days just over a year ago. However, every hole is still very clear in my mind & I love remembering it. Like some of the other USGA "tweaks" this one saddens me a little. My recollection of 7 green was the massive false front and the incredible undulations. I guess the new green is "fairer". I guess there are now 4+ "fair" hole positions. I guess there will be less complaints from the US Open competitors. I KNOW the green is WAY less interesting & fun.

[astavrides]

It's not only US Open competitors who like holes to be fair.  The old green complex may have been interesting, but so are train wrecks. 

[Brian Colbert]

When I first saw this hole, I thought it was the worst I'd ever played in competition. Looking back on it, I still think it is. To play this hole at 500+ yards straight uphill to a green the way it used to be is ridiculous. I played with a kid who hit a nice drive, an iron which landed on the front third of the green and chased over the back, then tried to chip it literally 3 feet, only to watch his ball roll off the front edge of the green and ~150 yards down the hill. He made at least a 7, maybe more like 8 or 9. Under the F&F conditions the USGA will certainly want for its open championship, this is one of the most unplayable holes I have ever come across. I think in the am stroke play it was about a 5.00 average.

This hole was plain idiotic. I favor the changes.

[Mark McKeever]

So a ball landing short and not quite making the surface turns around and rolls back 150 yards??

Mark

[Jon Wiggett]

When I first saw this hole, I thought it was the worst I'd ever played in competition. Looking back on it, I still think it is. To play this hole at 500+ yards straight uphill to a green the way it used to be is ridiculous. I played with a kid who hit a nice drive, an iron which landed on the front third of the green and chased over the back, then tried to chip it literally 3 feet, only to watch his ball roll off the front edge of the green and ~150 yards down the hill. He made at least a 7, maybe more like 8 or 9. Under the F&F conditions the USGA will certainly want for its open championship, this is one of the most unplayable holes I have ever come across. I think in the am stroke play it was about a 5.00 average.

This hole was plain idiotic. I favor the changes.

So lets get this straight!

500+ yard hole uphill meaning it is/should be a par 5
Player reaches it with a drive and an iron.
In an amateur strokeplay competition it was averaging 5 (the par)

ITS UNPLAYABLE

Brian, I have heard some gripes in my time but based on the information you provide you really need to look at your definition of UNPLAYABLE.

Jon

[Kevin Stark]

I'm with Brian here. The original green complex was just awful.

[Brian Colbert]

So a ball landing short and not quite making the surface turns around and rolls back 150 yards??

Mark

Typically a shot landing short would only roll back about 60-80 yards off the front of the green. I would guess because of momentum and the ball already possessing speed in the direction it was traveling and all that physicsy stuff is the reason it rolled about 150 yards down.

[Brian Colbert]

When I first saw this hole, I thought it was the worst I'd ever played in competition. Looking back on it, I still think it is. To play this hole at 500+ yards straight uphill to a green the way it used to be is ridiculous. I played with a kid who hit a nice drive, an iron which landed on the front third of the green and chased over the back, then tried to chip it literally 3 feet, only to watch his ball roll off the front edge of the green and ~150 yards down the hill. He made at least a 7, maybe more like 8 or 9. Under the F&F conditions the USGA will certainly want for its open championship, this is one of the most unplayable holes I have ever come across. I think in the am stroke play it was about a 5.00 average.

This hole was plain idiotic. I favor the changes.

So lets get this straight!

500+ yard hole uphill meaning it is/should be a par 5
Player reaches it with a drive and an iron.
In an amateur strokeplay competition it was averaging 5 (the par)

ITS UNPLAYABLE

Brian, I have heard some gripes in my time but based on the information you provide you really need to look at your definition of UNPLAYABLE.

Jon

Jon,

I think if a player playing in a USGA Championship is standing on a tee box thinking to himself that it was probably impossible for him to hit the green in regulation, that is a hole which needs to be looked at. Just my opinion.

FYI, here's my drawings for hole 7 in my yardage book. I hit about a 4-iron into the green if I remember correctly. You'll notice that my strategy was to hit it as high as possible into the front left corner of the green, and hopefully watch the slope to the left of the green feed the ball towards the hole. The pin is the black dot on the right center.



That's a lot of X's around the green for a 508 yard hole. To be fair, Patrick Reed birdied the hole in the stroke play on his way to -3 or -4, so maybe it's fine and I just suck  .

[David Davis]

Jon,

Agree with your comments if the hole was a par 5. It's not, it's a par 4. I too think it's a tough hole and the old green was too radical. I'm not very good at judging from the photos. The last time I played this hole the wind was blowing hard into our face a bit from the left. Pretty funny at 508 yds and quite steep uphill. My double felt like a victory. I heard Bubba hit driver, wedge...

Too long for me, probably a good change this.

[Carl Johnson]

Jon,

Agree with your comments if the hole was a par 5. It's not, it's a par 4. . . .

Which begs the eternal question, what the heck does "par" mean anyway?  You beat the other players, you win.

[Jeb Bearer]

that may be a lot of Xs for a 500 yard parfour, but for a short par five it's well defended risk reward hole. If you've played the course in a competition and found it ridiculous then its probably ridiculous, but I don't think its scoring average relative to par is a good indicator of that. After all, par is just an arbitrary number.

[Sean Leary]

It's not anywhere near 500 yards from the normal sets of tees.
Regardless, this green didn't work the way it was, especially under tournament stroke play conditions.  Lets see how it plays now before we pass judgement.

[Jon Wiggett]

Brian,

if a player stands on the tee thinking that it was probably impossible for him to hit the green in regulation then he is worrying and concentrating on the wrong thing. Having played quite a lot of tournaments on links courses in high winds I have had the experience on numerous occasions of knowing I will not hit the green in regulation. It is certainly not an argument for changing a hole unless you hate holes such as Redan which often falls into this category.

The fact of the matter is regardless of the par on the card it is 500 yards long so a par 5 and the average score was 5 which seems to confirm this. The word used was unplayable but I wonder if Brian really meant unfair. To me it is apparent if a mistake was made then, the best way to correct this would be change the par on the card and not changing the hole.

This thing of trying to protect par through length is ruining many of the best courses and driving the price up for all.

Jon

[Brian Colbert]

Brian,

if a player stands on the tee thinking that it was probably impossible for him to hit the green in regulation then he is worrying and concentrating on the wrong thing.

Disagree. As a player, coming to the realization that it will be impossible to hit the green in regulation would no doubt preclude the strategy/decision on where is the best place to miss the green, no? And based on the notes in my yardage book, you could also see that for a 508 yard hole, there are very few, if any, "best misses."

Having played quite a lot of tournaments on links courses in high winds I have had the experience on numerous occasions of knowing I will not hit the green in regulation. It is certainly not an argument for changing a hole unless you hate holes such as Redan which often falls into this category.

My claim is not that the specific weather conditions of that particular day made it impossible to hit the green in regulation. My claim is instead that the firm and fast conditions under which the hole is meant to be played, the old green was impossible to hit in general. Of these holes which you have played "knowing you would not hit the green in regulation", have you felt that any of them were holes under which you could never hit the green in regulation?


The fact of the matter is regardless of the par on the card it is 500 yards long so a par 5 and the average score was 5 which seems to confirm this.

There are numerous par 4s at Chambers Bay which exceed the length of 7 and still play as par 4s in just about anyone's opinion. There are 7 par 4s which play over 500 yards, including the hole in question. Only one is a converted par 5. Should the course be a par 78? Hole 11 measures 539 according to my yardage book. What those holes have which is different from the 7th is a green which the average player in the field in 2010 had a chance to stop his ball on.

The word used was unplayable but I wonder if Brian really meant unfair.

Let's go with "unreasonable."

To me it is apparent if a mistake was made then, the best way to correct this would be change the par on the card and not changing the hole.

Calling it a par 4 or a par 5 won't change the way anyone tries to play the hole. If you think that there will be a single pro that plays the hole driver-wedge-wedge because "it's a par 5", I've got a couple bridges I'd like to sell you. Leave it as a 4 on the card and create a green that is more accessible. The US Amateur was a trial run to see where the course needed to be altered to present a reasonable challenge to the world's best players in 2015. If this hole and the 1st hole didn't get altered at least slightly because of it, then awarding Chambers the am was absolutely pointless. And the argument that the course is changing for "the 1%" is further ridiculous. If it is unreasonable for "the 1%", how on earth can it be reasonable for everyone else?

This thing of trying to protect par through length is ruining many of the best courses and driving the price up for all.

This is a completely different topic. Chambers Bay was built in 2008 so if its abhorrent length existed from the beginning, wouldn't that just eliminate it from ever being one of the "best courses"?

Jon

[Greg Gilson]

Brian, thanks for helping articulate the perspective of a (1)high quality player, in a (2)stroke play, (3)major, (4)competition who (5)really cares what score he shoots. All 5 of those points are probably not relevant to the golf population often albeit that 1 or 2 of them may be on occasion. I also understand that you probably would feel the same way about "fair", "reasonable" and "playable" whether you are playing in the US Am or having a fun round with a few of your mates.

I only played the course twice (and flat loved it!!!!). We had a couple of lovely days. I was playing with a great mate. There weren't many people around. We played multiple balls & clubs off different tees. We played shots & holed out (mostly) but never kept scores. We skipped from hole to hole whenever we saw one that looked like even more fun. It was one of my favourite golf experiences ever. I cannot vouch for exactly how i felt or what we said when we got to #7 green. However, it was something like "there's a lot going on here", "that looks like a fun hole location", "i wish we had a chance to play this again". I was never offended or angered by it....far from it. But is that just because i was not any of the (5) above?

I understand that courses need to be tweaked or conditions managed if they are "unplayable" - especially for important competitions. I just dislike trying to make everything "fair" or "reasonable". Aren't fair & reasonable the enemy of "cool" & "quirk" ....which are 2 of the most popular words around here?

[Jon Wiggett]

Brian,

if a player stands on the tee thinking that it was probably impossible for him to hit the green in regulation then he is worrying and concentrating on the wrong thing.

Disagree. As a player, coming to the realization that it will be impossible to hit the green in regulation would no doubt preclude the strategy/decision on where is the best place to miss the green, no? And based on the notes in my yardage book, you could also see that for a 508 yard hole, there are very few, if any, "best misses."

Agree Brian. What I meant was a player at that level should be thinking about what he is going to do and not what he can't. Going through the process of I can't hit this green in regulation means however he already has expectations that are not dependent on what is actually there.

Having played quite a lot of tournaments on links courses in high winds I have had the experience on numerous occasions of knowing I will not hit the green in regulation. It is certainly not an argument for changing a hole unless you hate holes such as Redan which often falls into this category.

My claim is not that the specific weather conditions of that particular day made it impossible to hit the green in regulation. My claim is instead that the firm and fast conditions under which the hole is meant to be played, the old green was impossible to hit in general. Of these holes which you have played "knowing you would not hit the green in regulation", have you felt that any of them were holes under which you could never hit the green in regulation?

Again, it is good for a player to have knowledge of a hole but he should always play the hole according to the actual conditions. To answer your question, I do not get hung up on regulation and par when playing probably in part to the weather and its effect on play. I have played quite a few holes where I would not expect to hit the green in regulation most of the time. Regulation however is irrelevant as it has no effect on the outcome. Redan is a good example where in a summer when the ground is hard it is very difficult to stop the ball on the green. I never tried, played to a safe spot beyond the green and a chip and putt par. Should Redan be changed for being difficult to hit in regulation?


The fact of the matter is regardless of the par on the card it is 500 yards long so a par 5 and the average score was 5 which seems to confirm this.

There are numerous par 4s at Chambers Bay which exceed the length of 7 and still play as par 4s in just about anyone's opinion. There are 7 par 4s which play over 500 yards, including the hole in question. Only one is a converted par 5. Should the course be a par 78? Hole 11 measures 539 according to my yardage book. What those holes have which is different from the 7th is a green which the average player in the field in 2010 had a chance to stop his ball on.

But this discussion is not about the other holes but about the 7th. You say the hole is unreasonable ( ) because it is nigh on impossible to hit the green with the second shot (in regulation) and that this is because of the green design. The facts prove it plays as a par 5 based on the average score.

The word used was unplayable but I wonder if Brian really meant unfair.

Let's go with "unreasonable."  

To me it is apparent if a mistake was made then, the best way to correct this would be change the par on the card and not changing the hole.

Calling it a par 4 or a par 5 won't change the way anyone tries to play the hole. If you think that there will be a single pro that plays the hole driver-wedge-wedge because "it's a par 5", I've got a couple bridges I'd like to sell you. Leave it as a 4 on the card and create a green that is more accessible. The US Amateur was a trial run to see where the course needed to be altered to present a reasonable challenge to the world's best players in 2015. If this hole and the 1st hole didn't get altered at least slightly because of it, then awarding Chambers the am was absolutely pointless. And the argument that the course is changing for "the 1%" is further ridiculous. If it is unreasonable for "the 1%", how on earth can it be reasonable for everyone else?
Brian, the par is very relevant because it is the basis of your complaint about the hole which is that the green is impossible to hit with the second shot (regulation on a par 4 as you put it). I can see your point as to how a hole could be considered unreasonable if excessively difficult to finish at all but you can not argue that a hole is unreasonable as a par 5 when that is the average score.

Par is a guide for how many shots you might expect to take on a hole however it is not really relevant nor is the manor in which you get your score. You are correct. A pro will not play driver, wedge, wedge because it is a par 5. He will select his shots to get the best possible result in according to the situation.

It seems only unreasonable as a par 4 but not as a par 5

This thing of trying to protect par through length is ruining many of the best courses and driving the price up for all.

This is a completely different topic. Chambers Bay was built in 2008 so if its abhorrent length existed from the beginning, wouldn't that just eliminate it from ever being one of the "best courses"?

Your last sentence bears no relevance to my final point. I did not suggest that length but rather lengthening

Jon

[David_Elvins]

Whilst I haven't played Chambers Bay I will offer one thought.

All the best courses in the world contain features that are extreme whilst there are 1000s of mediocre courses with bailout ares,  and collection areas.

[Keith OHalloran]

David,
Can you think of a course that is considered the best in the world that has a green so extreme that a competitor in an am championship can
miss a chip by 150 yards?

[Matthew Essig]

The green complex is much improved. The old green complex was insane. The new one is still slightly insane, but it is much more fair. There is a "best miss" now to the right as Brian was talking about. A miss to the left isn't awful, either. The entire complex has been lowered so shots into the green aren't so flat coming in, so the false front isn't nearly as insane, and so a shot that bounces in front of the green has a better chance of rolling up. Even I have experienced the dreaded chip from behind the green that resulted in a wedge back up the hill. The back has been flattened to almost the level of the putting surface, so a putt or chip onto the green is much more fair. For a 500+ par 4 with so much trouble around, the green was cut in sections by large ridges, as well. The new green has been dumbed down, but still has some minor ridges that divide the green into front and back, and the front area into left and right. Every area of change was better than before, IMO.

[Ben Sims]

Another "unfair" hole is changed due to the inputs/reactions of the upper 0.001% of the players that see it.  What are the 6 steps of golf course changes for pro's again?  1)   2)    3)   4)    5)   6)  

[John Ezekowitz]

I think it is very interesting to compare and contrast the views expressed about this change and the views expressed about the changes to the 18th at Bandon Trails. While clearly there is not universal agreement in favor of the changes at Trails, the dissenters that I read were much less vociferous.

In both cases, changes are being made to soften a greensite by providing easier bailout areas. I know they are not identical, but they are at least similar.

I think the fact that the changes at Chambers Bay are being made explicitly for a tournament whereas the changes at BT are not affects the tenor of the discussion. I'm not sure that is really a good thing, but I am open to hearing why it may be.

[Sean Leary]

I disagree with the past two posts. I don't think it was just for the pros, although that may have been the tipping point. I think it was changed for the average daily fee player as well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()