Chambers Bay: Here We Go Again

[Joe Stansell]

I played Chambers Bay yesterday and the 10th and 13th holes are sporting "alternate greens" (aka temporary greens) as crews completely renovate the current greens. Word is that the 7th green is next on the list. Some of you may recall that the 7th and 13th greens were only relatively recently re-opened after being significantly re-worked.



I like what the maintenance crew is doing at Chambers Bay (very much improved in the last 12 months) but the course still obviously struggles with finding the right balance for maintaining its fescue greens given traffic patterns.

If you are playing Chambers Bay in the next 12 months, expect to be playing to the "alternates" for up to 3 holes.

[Richard Choi]

Joe, they are not renovating, they are trying to save the fescue greens.

Chambers is on pace for hosting 50,000 rounds. That is WAY too much for a fescue course. They had 11,000 rounds in Aug alone. It is probably the reason why they had to water so aggressively over the summer, and now they have to deal with a serious poa infestation.

The greens in question have serious conditioning problems. The only way to fix it is to have people off of them. They may have to close those greens all of next year too.

[jeffwarne]

11000 rounds in August?
Did they install lights?

[Richard Choi]

11000 five hour + rounds...

Being so far up north helps.

[BHoover]

Why can't fescue handle that sort of traffic? Doesn't St. Andrews get a ton of play?

[jeffwarne]

11000 five hour + rounds...

Being so far up north helps.

Richard,
I'll bite.
If the rounds are 5+ hours,
and the days are 13--14 hours long on average (August light isn't nearly as long as June)
what time are they starting play? Sunrise is 6:27 late in the month
how many minutes apart are tee times?
Double tees?
360 plus players per day?every day? on average?
yikes

[Greg Chambers]

I think it's safe to say that the wrong grass was selected for the putting surfaces.

[David_Elvins]

That temp green looks great.

[Joe Stansell]

Rich, I agree with you that the reason for these changes has to do with high traffic volumes -- at least that's what I was told, too.  But I also understand that they are doing a bit of re-shaping work (at least on the 10th, to change the way water sheds from the putting surface), and they are completely stripping the greens (again, at least the 10th, which I witnessed) of its sod and will hydro-seed. I guess I would call that a renovation but semantics aside, it is still very disappointing with a course that should be a little further along in its maturity. I'm not sure that Chambers Bay has gone through a full year since it opened without closing at least one of its green sites for a significant period of time.

Greg, I love the fact that Chambers Bay is all fescue, but you may well be right about the choice of grass for the putting surface. I will say, though, that the greens yesterday (aside from those that are closed) are in about the best shape I've seen them.

[Connor Dougherty]

I would think the biggest issue facing the greens mentioned is not traffic, but sunlight and airflow. All 3 greens mentioned have pretty severe slopes around them that both block sunlight and airflow. You can't do too much about the 7th and 13th greens (maybe soften the severity of the surrounding mounds on 13) but moving the 10th green to its temporary location would be a great idea, that or make the surrounding mounds much, much smaller.

[Sean_A]

I am curious to know the actual condition of the greens.  Do folks have pix?

Cia0

[Jim Nugent]

The greens in question have serious conditioning problems. The only way to fix it is to have people off of them. They may have to close those greens all of next year too.

Does this have any implications for the 2015 U.S. Open, now less than two years away?

[Ben Sims]

I leave town for a couple months and this happens?   This is why we can't have nice things!  

Kidding aside, I'm not that surprised re: 10 green.  There are several agronomic factors that make that green a nightmare.  Not the least of which is the concentration of wind that the "chute" between those dunes creates relative to other greens.  The slope back left probably doesn't help water move all that well either.  It drains essentially in one direction with traffic restricted (and wind too) to one very precise area of turf.  There was also a very long spell of dry weather in June/July this year, coupled with a "once-in-a-lifetime" dry and warm spring to boot.  Couple all those factors with a very high traffic number and you get what they got.  

But I'm surprised that 7 and 13 are on the block as well.  The new turf on 7 was just starting to be good in July and I never really saw any issues on 13 green that would necessitate reseeding.  In fact, #4 was always the green that looked to need turf quality adjustments.  I wonder if some of the issues with the turf at Chambers is a result of the extreme amount of soil displacement during construction.  Massive levels of disturbance in the soil structure combined with a tough to establish cultivar like fine fescue can't be good.  Just my two cents.  I really hope figure it out and get it right.  

[Gary Slatter]

Brian, I believe St Andrews keep adding fescues but it is only a percentage of their grass.   I was told their mix is to deal with a variety of conditions while avoiding Poa.

[RJ_Daley]

I wonder (and this is soooo far out of my ability to understand the soil science of my conjecture) but, is it possible that the subsoil base of the previously composed gypsum cement facility while capped with sand-soil for turf growth, is leaching or emoting a gasseous or soil performance altering aspect in 'hot spots' around the site?  Is it possible for certain concentrations to be so concentrated of whatever the chemical composition of the industrial site soil foundation that was prepared by rough grading to then be soil capped for turf planting, that those concentrations in specific areas are rising up into the rootzones in hot spots?  Can this effect things in specific areas in different ways like cationic exchange rates in the soil?  Can this effect the manner that the soil processes added fertilizer and other chemical applications to nurture the same turf cultivar from one area on the site to the other, making an application of x pounds of N-P-K per 1000sf and x amount of other applications, completely different in their effects of uptake on the same fescue cultivar that is being grown throughout the site?

[Richard Choi]

Personally, I think Ben is over thinking this. As you can see from photos above, the 10th green is flanked by two huge mounds with a relatively narrow opening in the front. ALL traffic is concentrated on that front side and that is where the problem is. The middle/back is fine. They may have to open up a bit more or make the diverted route more prominent.

I don't think it is a secret that fescue is not ideal for high traffic (the reason why no carts are allowed). And the fact that the course has had a good amount of traffic without proper grow-in time has not helped.

The reason why they are closing these right now is precisely to get ready for the open. There may be other greens added to these as conditions dictate.

#7 and #13 are relatively new (recently remodeled) and they are most sensitive to the high traffic. The other shaded greens that had problems before like #12 and #8 are doing better (#4 which also had some work, is debatable right now).

Sean, here is the picture of #7. It is a bit dark, but you can clearly see the damages...

[RJ_Daley]

The link to the article is gone, but the discussion group replies are interesting...

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2012/5/8/chambers-bay-super-resigns.html

[Ben Sims]

Rich,

I'm shocked by that photo of 7.  When was that taken?  Seriously, that really surprised me.  

There's a few things that could be done at 10 to make the traffic issue better.  Removing the front left bunker would help.  I don't see it as a value added hazard.  

The conditioning at Chambers will always rely heavily on the localized conditions of the site itself.  It's hard to overestimate just how different the conditions are for a green like 15 and 17  vs.  a hole like 7 and 8.  

[Richard Choi]

That was 2 weeks ago. I took some photos before they closed things down.

[Ben Sims]

That was 2 weeks ago. I took some photos before they closed things down.

That green went downhill fast.  Wow.  

As a I said earlier.  I really hope they get it right.  The staff at Chambers is top notch and its going to be a great Open.  To boot, it's a great facility for those of us in Pierce Ct.  In many ways, as Chambers Bay goes, so do the fortunes of University Place and the greater Tacoma area.  

[Jon Wiggett]

I don't think it is a secret that fescue is not ideal for high traffic (the reason why no carts are allowed). And the fact that the course has had a good amount of traffic without proper grow-in time has not helped.

Richard,

fescue will take a large amount of traffic if the design of the course is correct and the turf management is correct. I think your comment about not having a proper grow-in time says a lot. It is the easy way out to blame the grass but all it shows is a lack of understanding of the grasses requirements (I do not mean you Richard).

As Gary S says, TOC has a mixed sward which is the safest way to go but if you have someone in charge who understands his stuff really well then the results can be exceptional such as with Chris Haspell at Castle Stuart.

Jon

[William_G]

with all the "imported" sand to fill in the excavated mining pit, it was anyone's guess how any type of turf would fare, particularly at those sites close to the cliff edge where, as Connor D pointed, get poor air and light like #7 (as Richard's pic demonstrates)