[Ran Morrissett]

I believe that Yale, Fishers and Chicago are generally considered to be Raynor's best, maybe a notch or so above Camargo, The Creek, Yeamans, and Shoreacres.

I have never played Chicago but I have spent the last two days devouring its club history book and in particular the hole by hole section penned by Ben Crenshaw.

My question: what makes it that notch better than Yeamans or Camargo? What specifically did Raynor excel at here? The topo is not particularly noteworthy so it isn't because the property gave him a big jump start.

Part of the answer must surely lie in how the Club presents the course: firm, with its bunkering and greens perfectly preserved, plus tree encroachment is well under control.

Still, what makes the design standout within the Raynor/Macdonald family of courses?

[Mark_Fine]

It's probably the "experience" aspect that causes raters to give it the edge.  Architecturewise, Shoreacres is right there with it as are the others mentioned.  If there is one tangible aspect that differentiates it it's the vastness of the site.  Just to look out over it and see all the golf holes is quite moving!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ran,

I am a huge fan of both Shoreacres and Chicago. The ravines at Shoreacres are hard to beat for a setting and dramatic hazards, but Chicago just feel right.

I love that history book, and had to do lot of sweet talking to get one in the pro shop on my visit. I think I got a discount of only 125% of normal price.

Jeff

[rjbay]

I got to visit Chicago Golf last year and had a great time just walking the course, didn't ,make a swing. It just feels good! It is simple uncluttered and big. You can obviously hit it a little crooked, and make bogey. Just a classic feel to the club. no GPS systems here. I hope to see more of Raynors' work going forward.

[jim_lewis]

Ran:

I am puzzled  by your premise that Yale is generally considered to be a notch above Carmargo. Says who? Camargo is certainly rated more highly by GOLFWEEK and Golf Digest.

[T_MacWood]

The fact that Chicago is mentioned in the same breath with Yale, Fishers Island, Camargo and Shoreacres is the hint as to why it so good. All those courses you have mentioned have wonderful natural features, there designs maximize and take full advantage of those features. Chicago occupies a flattish somewhat stark property, its genius is in the purity of its design-- very few trees, no remarkable natural attributes, just well designed golf hole after golf hole.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Ran,
I hope you are enjoying the book, i got my "Hazzards" and "Aspects of golf architecture" today, I'm afraid to get them dirty.  I am posting some pics from my trip to chicago this spring, with the hopes you will share some of that fine book you have purchased.  I also had the chance to photograph most of Shoreacres as well.  The greens at chicago are fantastic, from the sharp corners to the intricate shaping and undulations.  The road hole and Biaritz both beat the examples at Shoreacres, but I have to concur with Jeff, as that ravine is something else! And that bunker at 17 is pretty deep too.
The pics i'm about to post are somewhat different from the ones featured in the courses section.  
mike

p.s. just sitting here in rain soaked houston, watching the delayed Cup.

[Mike Nuzzo]

That last one was from the road hole 2nd.
It's the "hotel" feature.

2nd green

3rd Biarritz, you can't see the dip in the morning shadows.

The redan 7th.

The redan 7th, from the 8th fairway.

The rest of the Chicago pictures aren't as dramatic.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the pics, Mike - hope you're happy with the Cup results, it was a pretty entertaining series.

What exactly makes a design feel "big," as it seems many Raynor designs are described? Is it openness? Lack of trees? Holes that are not parallel or crammed into a property? And, for that matter, what makes a design feel "small"? The only courses I've played that are discussed on this site are the World Woods courses & Tobacco Road, & I certainly had this feeling of contrast between a big feeling Pine Barrens & a small feeling Tobacco Road. I think there is a pretty decent yardage difference, but there seems to be more to it than that.

[George Pazin]

P.S. I didn't realize until just now that Chicago GC was (yawn) just another housing development course!:-)

[J Penkwitz]

I had the opportunity to play both Chicago Golf and Shoreacres last year.  They are great examples of superior designs, but would love to have everyone compare them to Lawsonia's Links course.  This is a true classic gem that we are trying to restore to it's original charm.  We recently have removed over 160 trees.  The fescue is now flowing to it's peak reddish color.

Yes....it's open to the public.

[Ran Morrissett]

Jim,

I'm talking about Raynor's original design, as opposed to how Yale/Camargo are presented today. Everyone from Banks and Macdonald on down would agree that Yale was a superior design to Camargo. In fact, I would be shocked if George Bahto had any info that indicated that Raynor didn't think Yale was the best he ever did.

Mike,

Excellent photos - please post more with as much commentary as possible. So you like #2 at Chicago GC better than #10 at Shoreacres? That's tough talk indeed! What were your favorite holes at Chicago? 2,3,and 7?

PS Please post any Shoreacres pics too if you wish.

Jeff,

What features of Chicago GC would you like to emulate in your own work (if any)?

Who is the Green Keeper there? I assume he is extremely well regarded? I've always heard that the course is beautifully presented with not too much of the color green.

Cheers,

Cheers,

[Joel_Stewart]

The first 4 holes are about as tough as it gets, really long and hard.  Its such a wake up call it gives you an opportunity to see classic architecture, shaping, mounding and how it can influence where you need to position the ball on every shot.  

[jim_lewis]

Ran:

Sorry, I didn't realize that you are comparing the original designs. To be honest, I am only interested in comparing the courses as they exist today. For the same reason, I fail to see the value in comparing Sand Hills with Riviera of the 1920's.

I am not so sure that it is valid to rely on an architect's pronouncement that one of his courses is his best. What would be left for us self-appointed expert critics and course raters to do? It is almost a common practice these days for course owners to quote the architect stating that this is his best course. I think Jack Nicklaus has at least 10 "best" courses.

Could it be that Raynor was proudest of his Yale design because of the challenge of the terrain? Surely he didn't think the finished product was a better course than Yeamans Hall!

[cardyin]

One aspect of Chicago Golf Club is that (as with Yeaman's Hall) it sits on a rather square piece of property, which allowed holes to be routed in all directions.  The routing is as good as it gets: here's the green, there's the tee, very close but just out of range.
Before I started, I looked at the scorecard length of about 6,500 yards. I bombed a drive on No. 1. My caddie silently handed me a 3-wood and turned away.  I bombed a drive on No. 2.  My cadie handed me a 3-wood. I hit a long iron on No. 3.  No.4 was about 570 yards, and I started thinking, when does this let up?  Finally, Chicago Golf Club is a course you WALK.  There are carts, but riding that course would constitute sacrilege.  It simply consists of a continuous string of very fine, interesting holes with superb greens complexes.  

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Olde Style and brats.

[John Morrissett]

I'm the Morrissett brother who has been fortunate enough to play Chicago GC.

To me, what separates it from some of the other Macdonald/Raynor designs is that Chicago GC might well have the best set of greens.  Like YHC now has, there are a number of greens with 90* corners, but what is unique is the number of strong false fronts.  There are several holes where a ball can be a full ten yards or so onto a green and still roll back off the front.  I don't know of another Macdonald/Raynor course that features false fronts so prominently.

Plus, as others have said, the club has the right attitude about trees -- if one ever comes in play, it is removed!

I know we have batted this topic around before, but I think of Chicago GC the same way I think of Muirfield -- as the best examples of the saying (with which I know some of you do not agree!) that "the course is greater than the sum of its individual holes."  While holes like 1,2,7,11, and 12 are wonderful, wonderful holes, the course does not have the standout holes as many other Macdonald/Raynor courses do (i.e., if you were to compile a composite Macdonald/Raynor course, Chicago GC would likely have what would appear to be a disproportionately low number of holes on it).  On the other hand, of course, is that the weaker/more indifferent holes are awfully strong.

Overall, Chicago Golf is exactly what the Morrissetts want their Carthage Club to look like.

[Mike Nuzzo]

John-
How many times have you played it?  I don't think i could fully appreciate those green complexes unless i played there 100 times.  And I do hope your carthage club requires as many plays.

no matter how hard i tried, there is no way to photograph the 10th green and do it justice.  Here's my effort.

Here is a very fine false front on the punchbowl 12th.

You can see the false front a little better here (same 12th hole)

[John Morrissett]

Mike--

I've played there only once.

I'm glad you mentioned the 10th green, as I'm embarrassed to say that I completely missed it my one time there.  The hole was on the right, and I think I somehow contrived to hit a decent shot near the hole, so I did not have to negotiate much of the green.  

After my round there, I have come across many people who just love that hole and green, some going so far as to say it is their favorite version of the Short Hole.  I feel like a real dunce for not having picked up on it!

[aclayman]

Can anyone who has played it say that, it's ultra exclusivity, was not a factor in Loving it?

[RJ_Daley]

While I can only respond to pictures, I get the distinct feeling that the setting is much like CC of Charleston with the neighborhood giving a warm feeling of a grand old neighborhood course.  The greensites also appear very close in manufactured style and scope upon relatively flat terrain to CCofC.  

Jeff Penkowitz's invitation to check out Lawsonia should not be missed. Ran is correct in his comment that Lawsonia is not presented as radiantly green.  While the photos are nice, if they are accurate of the everyday look, it comes off a little lush at Chicago.  I will go so far as to guarantee that if you like this look at Chicago, you will like Lawsonia.  The only fellow that posts here that I know who has played them both is Evan Fleisher.  What say you Evan?

Ran, the super at Lawsonia is Mike Berwick.  I have an interview Q&A with him about the restoration and how it effects his mantenance regime.  I have about 1/2 of an article written for submission to some magazine, but have held off because they are doing the restoration over a three year period and don't want to jump the gun until all the work is declared to be done.  What I can say is that I have seen the intended scope of the total project and think it is wonderful work by ARchie, Ron Forse.  The one slight criticism that I have heard from someone I very much respect is that all the doglegs on the course are right turns.  There are no real doglegs left, thus favoring the right handed fader-slicer.  Because of the total tree removal at these doglegs, the links enviroment now allows the confident drawer of the ball to start it into the few dogleg's that apply without tree interference.  My only observation is that like Wild Horse and other courses that feature the native grass environment, managing that rough to not get too thick undergrowth with blue grasses is a big consideration and chore.  We have been rainy up here in Wisconsin and I have not seen how much that has effected Lawsonia this year.  But it looks like Chicago could have a too lush rough problem from the pics as well, IMHO.  Oh well, even though my name is right for the location, Chicago probably won't be sending me an invitation soon...  

[Evan Fleisher]

Okay Dick...I'll chime in here as having the INCREDIBLY GOOD FORTUNE of having played both tracks.  And yes, if you like Chicago you will also love Lawsonia.

As for the comment by aclayman, the fact the CGC is so exclusive only played a factor in the equation for me, in the fact that I actually got to play it...not the fact that it was in fact so private (does that even make sense???).  CGC is a very special place, routes very well in a fairly tight space (unlike the more wide open layout at Lawsonia), and has some classic holes designs that we've come to know and love...it just oozes history and tradition.  That's what made it so special fo me.

As for the comments about #10, what a truly great short hole.  My own playing version of the hole?  Pulled my tee shot right into the greenside bunker there (I'm a mollydooker, remember?), made a hideous attempt at extracting myself from the sand and ended up in the long greenside rough, then calmy chiped the ball across the green and into the hole for a routine par.  

I'm sorry that I cannot comment or compare CGC and Lawsonia to the other greats (Yale, Fishers, Camargo, The Creek, Yeamens, & Shoreacres) you have listed here as I have yet to play any of these venerable tracks...something I hope someone will help me correct one day.

[Ran Morrissett]

Chicago GC (as we know it today) was built in 1923.

Langford and Moreau lived around Chicago.

Lawsonia was built in 1929.

Has anyone ever seen something by Langford/Moreau that indicates that Chicago GC was an influence on their design style?

[RJ_Daley]

Ran, you indicate that the Chicago CC of today, as we know it, was from 1923, yet it was laid out in 1895 by CB.  Does this indicate that Seth Raynor had great influence on what the course design appears to be now.  Does anyone know the scope of the work from the origins of 1895 to what was remodelled in 1923 and what we see now?  

There is a work gap there for CB from 1895 to 1914 when he teamed up with Raynor. In that gap time (1900-1914), Bendelow was working out of Chicago for Spaulding, then took over from Langford at American Park Builders.  Langford was playing for Yale golf team in early 1900s.  CB and Seth did Yale.  All of these things have a sort of seam patching them together.

I can't imagine that these men, Bendelow, Langford, Raynor, CB himself didn't know each other and collaborate or at least discuss design ideas when the business of GCA was in it's infancy.  I really can't tell the difference in manufactured features like the gullwing humps and bunkers and table top or butte like green sites between what I have seen of Raynor and what I have seen of Langford-Moreau.  And, I have seen these butte like green sites first done by Bendelow.  I think it is a sort of adaptation of the parkland hilly sites that they found themselves being asked to work on in Mid-west and heavy soils.  Where they have flatter land, they seem to emulate dunes-links with heavier loamy soils by building the gullwing humps and bunkers with carry over them and a speed ramp feeding off the backsides of them. Thus, the manufactured look.  CB took on Seth and Banks due to their engineering background.  Langford took on Moreau for same reasons.  That approach has a method/business plan similarity.  There has simply got to be a design synergy working between these fellows.

[Ran Morrissett]

RJ, Less than half of today's holes (1, 2, 10, 14, 15, 17 and 18) are in similar positions to where Macdonald put holes.

In terms of a broad oversimplification, Macdonald's course had parallel holes around the club's perimeter and Raynor's 1922 routing (which is the course of today) spread the holes out and used the land in the interior of property.

Where in Wisconsin is Lawsonia Links? How long a drive is it from downtown Chicago? How far into their restoration plans are they? Thanks.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()