The New 7th Green Complex at Chambers Bay

[Matthew Petersen]

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.

This does sound like the sort of change that, even if initiated by the USGA, will benefit everyone. If the green was so severe that a chip from above the hole could go 60 yards down the hill 9or 150y in competition), that's no more fun for a hacker than a pro, and the hacker is less able to hit a careful chip that won't fall victim to that fate.

[Jeb Bearer]

You have to be careful when criticizing changes made "for the pros". A lot of courses lately have been modified to "protect par" in competitions and add four distinct pin positions for the few days every year when the .01% plays the course. Obviously, that is no good.

 But it seems like this particular change at CB was made because the hole was actually too difficult for the pros, ie. unplayable, and if the best golfers in the world can't play it, then no one can. So that type of change benefits everyone, and its really no different than modifying any course after it's been tested out, like the architects that used to see how a course played before bunkering, etc.

[PCCraig]

I thought the green was awesome when I played it and these changes stink.

[Tim Bert]

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?

I suspect that result was driven by the tournament conditions and not the green.  There would have been no possible way for the ball to roll 150 yards from the green the day I played it and the course was playing plenty firm and fast.  By way of comparison, I'd say 10, 11, and 13 at Crystal Downs are all easily more extreme and I think it weighed in at 12 on the Golf Digest US courses.

[Matthew Essig]

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.

This does sound like the sort of change that, even if initiated by the USGA, will benefit everyone. If the green was so severe that a chip from above the hole could go 60 yards down the hill 9or 150y in competition), that's no more fun for a hacker than a pro, and the hacker is less able to hit a careful chip that won't fall victim to that fate.

It is a change that will benefit ALL players. Not only will it benefit the MASSIVE scores that were possible, it will also improve the time players behind the struggling players would have to wait. Improving pace of play is almost always better, right?

[Jon Wiggett]

This does sound like the sort of change that, even if initiated by the USGA, will benefit everyone. If the green was so severe that a chip from above the hole could go 60 yards down the hill 9or 150y in competition), that's no more fun for a hacker than a pro, and the hacker is less able to hit a careful chip that won't fall victim to that fate.

Same could be said for the 15th at ANGC where a chip from behind the green that is slightly over hit ends up in the water. The same could be said of the 12th at ANGC where a bunker shot slightly over hit could end up in the water. Do you think that the water should be filled in to make it fairer?

Jon

[Garland Bayley]

Par and strokes in regulation have no bearing on the quality of a hole. The hole lies there before you. Play it! Don't play something a formula for matching par to length tells you. This hacker never had a problem with a ball returning down the hill in front. From my very first play, I played my approach shots long to prevent that, as that is the problem the hole presented to me to solve with my game.

EDIT: Perhaps I should make clear that with my game, my approach shots were my 3rd shot.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

This does sound like the sort of change that, even if initiated by the USGA, will benefit everyone. If the green was so severe that a chip from above the hole could go 60 yards down the hill 9or 150y in competition), that's no more fun for a hacker than a pro, and the hacker is less able to hit a careful chip that won't fall victim to that fate.

If you are planning a shot that will go 60 yards down the hill, your planning mechanism is faulty. No one said you are entitled to or have to chip the ball at the hole. This is golf, not bowling.

[Jon Wiggett]

Par and strokes in regulation have no bearing on the quality of a hole. The hole lies there before you.

+1 good point

[Greg Gilson]

One of the many things I enjoyed about cb was the abundance of "non straightforward" shots - including those to, around and on #7 green. There were far more questions asked than I could answer across a round or 2. I would love to have the opportunity to have played it enough times to have come up with good answers. I reckon there is a lifetime of fun (if not always fair)  golf in those fairways and greens.

[Garland Bayley]

One of the many things I enjoyed about cb was the abundance of "non straightforward" shots - including those to, around and on #7 green. There were far more questions asked than I could answer across a round or 2. I would love to have the opportunity to have played it enough times to have come up with good answers. I reckon there is a lifetime of fun (if not always fair)  golf in those fairways and greens.

Greg,

Golf is always fair. Your opponent(s) play(s) the same same course you do. If you think the game may present some situations that are too difficult, then say so.

[Greg Gilson]

Golf is always fair. Your opponent(s) play(s) the same same course you do. If you think the game may present some situations that are too difficult, then say so.

GJ, i think we are in violent agreement....at least as far as #7 at CB is concerned. I certainly recall lots of intriguing, challenging, interesting, quirky shots across my 2 rounds there....including a bit of back & forth at #7! All this did was get me excited about playing our sport again and regretting i didn't have more time & rounds to figger out a solution to the challenges i was being thrown.

[Matthew Essig]

In case the original pictures were not clear enough, here are some pictures from the chambers bay turf care website http://chambersbayturfcare.blogspot.com/:

[Jeb Bearer]

Greg and Garland,

I completely agree with you both regarding "fair", fun, and quirk. But is playing your ball 500 yards up a hill, making the "safe" miss behind the green, only to have your chip trickle off the false front, forcing you to walk 60 to 100 yards back down the hill and then play back up, really fun for a lot of golfers? I've never played the course, so I don't know, I'm just wondering.

[Ben Sims]

Jeb,

I had a nice conversation with my friend Don Mahaffey today while driving through the crap weather in north Texas.  He mentioned something that I think is appropriate here.  It goes something like this.  How would Prestwick be different if a committee or group of people were hanging about trying to minimize weird lies, shots, and odd results?  How would dozens of the worlds great holes or courses be different if someone were constantly looking for a way to make them more fair or more "appropriate?"

[Jeb Bearer]

Ben,

I agree completely with that idea. I do think, though, that there is a difference between "unfair" and unplayable. If a chip struck just a little too hard rolls a hundred yards back down the hill, I don't know how many repeat plays I would want there. Then again, if there is a way to keep it on the green and just accept a 20 footer or something, I don't think I would have a problem with that. I've never played the course, I'm just going by what others on this thread have said. Probably shouldn't have commented at all, but it is an interesting theory question, when does weird or unusual become too extreme?

The other problem I have with the idea is that going long seems to be the safe miss. Of course, I'm not advocating to be able to play safe and have an easy shot, that would be even worse, but at least a shot that you can get on, or near (within 50 yards??) of the green.

And then there's another way of looking at it, which is, as Mackenzie would argue, the fact that the hole stirs controversy is proof that it is, or was, a great hole. At the end of the day, I just think you have to be careful in both extremes. There is nothing meant to be "fair" or "appropriate" about golf, but in being weird the features should also be fun to play.

[Ben Sims]

Jeb,


If a chip struck just a little too hard rolls a hundred yards back down the hill, I don't know how many repeat plays I would want there.

Jeb, I would be careful not to attach your entire opinion of a golf hole to one shot, or even one event.  I think it very difficult to judge a hole based on tournament conditions for very good players and at the extreme length the hole was played.

Then again, if there is a way to keep it on the green and just accept a 20 footer or something, I don't think I would have a problem with that.

I find it very hard to believe that this option or one in that vein wasn't available.  Just because a chip was hit delicately, doesn't mean it was the right play.  Lot's a great stories about guys that shorted the approach to the road hole and were forced to leave themselves with a 30 footer for par because challenging the bunker is dumb.

when does weird or unusual become too extreme

How many drinks does it take for an ugly chick to become hot?  Depends on the person.

The other problem I have with the idea is that going long seems to be the safe miss.

Why?  I think that is genius.  No one is expecting it!  It confounds the hell out of good players.  And after a practice round or two, it should be apparent to better players and caddies.  Why should short or to the sides always be the safe miss?

[Greg Gilson]

Jeb & Ben ....I agree with pretty much all of this. Whilst i come down firmly in the fun, sporty, challenging, quirky camp i do understand that the holes should not be "UNPLAYABLE" and maybe thats where the line is drawn for me? Personally, i'm also fine as long as there is a playable option even if its a little funky and certainly if its not immediately obvious. The 2 times i played this hole in particular it was never THAT unplayable. That is probably down to conditioning (not that F & F when i played) and hole location on the day. I do remember thinking there was a lot going on but never that you couldn't complete the hole (in a timely sense).  It seems to me if elite players are playing quality chip shots back  towards the front of the green but rolling 100 yards away, the hole location that day/week was "borderline" for the conditions (did someone mention Royal Melbourne?).

PS. Ben, What an idea....give a committee the task of trying to make Prestwick "fair". They would need an army of bulldozers i suppose

PPS. Mathew, thanks for posting those extra pics!

[Jeb Bearer]

.

The other problem I have with the idea is that going long seems to be the safe miss.

Why?  I think that is genius.  No one is expecting it!  It confounds the hell out of good players.  And after a practice round or two, it should be apparent to better players and caddies.  Why should short or to the sides always be the safe miss?

I think I agree with most of what you said. Also, I didnt express myself clearly there, I have no problem with the safe miss being long, I love it! What I meant to say was that to play safe and then take a two putt five is one thing, to play safe and not be able to get anywhere near the green on your next shot seems a little over the top to me. As Greg said, though, that might have been more due to conditions and setup than the design of the hole itself.

[Sean Leary]

If Prestwick were built as is today, it would be out of business in 15 minutes.  You can't compare the two. Quirk is perfect when it's old.

[Garland Bayley]

UNPLAYABLE! UNPLAYABLE! UNPLAYABLE! There is almost no such thing as unplayable. What there is is a bunch of egotists that are denied a low score complaining about a golf circumstance. High handicappers see unplayable all the time. And you know what, they keep playing, because the love the game. If the chip runs to far it is their fault not the courses.

... to play safe and not be able to get anywhere near the green on your next shot seems a little over the top to me. ...

No, it is just beyond the players capabilities. It seems you imply that not risking the difficult shot entitles you to only loose a small fraction of a stroke in your score on average. If you go to a completely enclosed driving range then perhaps you can be guaranteed you will not hit a ball out of the place. But, there are no guarantees in golf.

Golf. Love it or quit it.
 

[Connor Dougherty]

I liked the original green a lot, but that may have had to do with the fact that when I played it the greens were sanded. With US Open conditions it could have been a big problem, so the change is understandable.

It's not whether the merits of the original greens was good or not, but from the photos, this green looks rather boring. Something in between would have been much, much better.

[Jon Wiggett]

The people on this thread using phrases such as unplayable are being a little hysterical. It is clearly playable as the average score in the US AM was 5 shots so the perfect par 5. The other thing that made me laugh was the statement that a course should present a 'reasonable' challenge during the US Open. I was always under the impression that the USGA wanted to present the 'stiffest' challenge!

Jon

[Sean_A]

The OTT line is different for all of us.  I must say as a guy who likes quirk and the unexpected a lot, but perhaps not quite as much as the hardcore crowd, I don't like the sound of a good miss facing a downhill chip which may roll 50 yards off the green.  To me, being above that hole with that sort of chip back is not a good miss.  If thats all the hole is offering as a place to miss a shot, then something is wrong with the design. 

For full disclosure, I am not a big fan of putts rolling off greens unless someone has totally got himself in the wrong spot, however, this implies that there is a doable right spot(s).  That said, I don't think its a great idea to incorporate severe back to front greens and severely uphill holes.  One or the other, very rarely both and then only if the archie offers a place to play to a flatter area of the green and accept that a 2 putt is great golf from that zone.   

Ciao

[Matthew Essig]

The other thing that made me laugh was the statement that a course should present a 'reasonable' challenge during the US Open. I was always under the impression that the USGA wanted to present the 'stiffest' challenge!

Jon

There is a difference between a stiff challenge and an unfair challenge. Trust me. There will still be plenty of bogeys and doubles on the hole. The change will make it so the pros won't be cry babies about the course, which it seems they always do when conditions are challenging.