Only One Good Course in Chicago...

[Paul Richards]

Patrick:

Sorry to disagree with you, but if Hannigan really said what is alleged, then he is an idiot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Richards,

Anything is possible, but I would doubt that Frank Hannigan would make that statement.

It wouldn't be the first time that someone was misquoted.

[Scott McWethy]

Found this old thread from almost 15 years ago and thought some of the comments were interesting.  With some new courses built since this thread began as well as many restorations, interested to see what some of the Chicago area people think about the status of whether there is still just one "great" golf course in the area or are there plenty of others.

[Jim Hoak]

Chicago has many very-good to great courses.  It is arguably the best golf city in the US with rich top soil that produces fantastic turf, somewhat varied terrain, classic architecture and a great history.  I would put Chicago Golf, Shoreacres and Old Elm in the great course category--and 10-15 more very good courses.

[Tim_Cronin]

Chicago GC
Shoreacres
Medinah No. 1
Olympia Fields North
Medinah No. 3
Skokie
Cog Hill No. 4
Beverly
Olympia Fields South
Flossmoor
Old Elm
Knollwood




The order is how quickly I thought of and ranked them. Rethinking the order may be different and others added, but none of these would drop out.

[J_ Crisham]

Chicago GC
Shoreacres
Medinah No. 1
Olympia Fields North
Medinah No. 3
Skokie
Cog Hill No. 4
Beverly
Olympia Fields South
Flossmoor
Old Elm
Knollwood




The order is how quickly I thought of and ranked them. Rethinking the order may be different and others added, but none of these would drop out.

Tim,
    I agree with the courses you have listed. My view is that Chicago has  a 4 tier system with regards to the quality of the architecture/golf course.
   Tier 1:   Chicago Golf Club, Shoreacres, and Old Elm- arguably in the Doak 8+ range. Courses that are extremely well designed and maintained.
   Tier 2:   Butler National, Olympia Fields North, Medinah 3, Skokie, Beverly, Black Sheep, and Flossmoor. Roughly all Doak 7's .           Terrific courses that have just a few holes that are a bit mediocre.
    Tier 3: OFCC South, Medinah 1, Exmoor, Lake Shore, Elgin CC, Knollwood, Butterfield, Hinsdale, Edgewood Valley, Bob O Link, Cog Hill 4, Midlothian, Evanston and Conway Farms. Roughly Doak 6's. Very nice member courses that are fun to play.
     Tier 4: Ravisloe, Calumet, Idlewild, Naperville, Ridge, and Bryn Mawr. Doak 5's. Fun to play but nothing real special.


Tim- I welcome your thoughts on my tier sytem, In each tier I find the courses to be pretty much interchangeable depending on one's tastes.

[Terry Lavin]

There might be five "great" courses here in town, but NYC and Philly have us beat handily, it seems to me. Even LA has a great five or so. Not complaining, mind you, but looking at the Met Top 50 makes me realize how deep they are and how relatively shallow we are.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Chicago GC
Shoreacres
Medinah No. 1
Olympia Fields North
Medinah No. 3
Skokie
Cog Hill No. 4
Beverly
Olympia Fields South
Flossmoor
Old Elm
Knollwood




The order is how quickly I thought of and ranked them. Rethinking the order may be different and others added, but none of these would drop out.

Tim,
    I agree with the courses you have listed. My view is that Chicago has  a 4 tier system with regards to the quality of the architecture/golf course.
   Tier 1:   Chicago Golf Club, Shoreacres, and Old Elm- arguably in the Doak 8+ range. Courses that are extremely well designed and maintained.
   Tier 2:   Butler National, Olympia Fields North, Medinah 3, Skokie, Beverly, Black Sheep, and Flossmoor. Roughly all Doak 7's .           Terrific courses that have just a few holes that are a bit mediocre.
    Tier 3: OFCC South, Medinah 1, Exmoor, Lake Shore, Elgin CC, Knollwood, Butterfield, Hinsdale, Edgewood Valley, Bob O Link, Cog Hill 4, Midlothian, Evanston and Conway Farms. Roughly Doak 6's. Very nice member courses that are fun to play.
     Tier 4: Ravisloe, Calumet, Idlewild, Naperville, Ridge, and Bryn Mawr. Doak 5's. Fun to play but nothing real special.


Tim- I welcome your thoughts on my tier sytem, In each tier I find the courses to be pretty much interchangeable depending on one's tastes.

This list and tiering are pretty much spot on.


Another "Doak 6" is Glen View. After Jim Urbina's work, and now with a new super who came from The Loop and Chicago GC, it is revealing its potential as it sits on one of the best pieces of property in the district.

[Tim_Cronin]

Oops. Left out Butler National. Out of sight, out of mind. But if they had ladies day, the USGA would be there in a heartbeat.


Jack, interesting system. I'd have to think about the individual courses. I know Butterfield has a wild set of greens, and did even before the Smyers re-do. Where would you put Onwentsia? That should make my list too.

[BCowan]

     Tier 4: Ravisloe, Doak 5's. Fun to play but nothing real special.

Jack,


5,  Do u grade hard for lack of firmness?  The par 5s are top tier collection for me, superior to Scioto and Oakland Hills just off the top of my head.  The par 3s are superior to Inverness which isn't saying a whole lot and Indianwood and Canterbury.  The par 4's are great, 5th hole could fit on Holston Hills top 4s.  5, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 18 are very solid. Nothing special, are u serious?  My buddy Anthony thinks it is around top 20 in the Windy.  Onwentsia I hear great things about.  Let's not judge courses on whether they get 5,000 rounds, have wealthy members, a trophy room, and putt putt scorecards to tally up ones score. I agree with ur assessment of Flossmoor.  I just wish Rav could be maintained as well as Flossmoor.  I give it a 6.8 due to softness and trees

[J_ Crisham]

Chicago GC
Shoreacres
Medinah No. 1
Olympia Fields North
Medinah No. 3
Skokie
Cog Hill No. 4
Beverly
Olympia Fields South
Flossmoor
Old Elm
Knollwood




The order is how quickly I thought of and ranked them. Rethinking the order may be different and others added, but none of these would drop out.

Tim,
    I agree with the courses you have listed. My view is that Chicago has  a 4 tier system with regards to the quality of the architecture/golf course.
   Tier 1:   Chicago Golf Club, Shoreacres, and Old Elm- arguably in the Doak 8+ range. Courses that are extremely well designed and maintained.
   Tier 2:   Butler National, Olympia Fields North, Medinah 3, Skokie, Beverly, Black Sheep, and Flossmoor. Roughly all Doak 7's .           Terrific courses that have just a few holes that are a bit mediocre.
    Tier 3: OFCC South, Medinah 1, Exmoor, Lake Shore, Elgin CC, Knollwood, Butterfield, Hinsdale, Edgewood Valley, Bob O Link, Cog Hill 4, Midlothian, Evanston and Conway Farms. Roughly Doak 6's. Very nice member courses that are fun to play.
     Tier 4: Ravisloe, Calumet, Idlewild, Naperville, Ridge, and Bryn Mawr. Doak 5's. Fun to play but nothing real special.


Tim- I welcome your thoughts on my tier sytem, In each tier I find the courses to be pretty much interchangeable depending on one's tastes.

This list and tiering are pretty much spot on.


Another "Doak 6" is Glen View. After Jim Urbina's work, and now with a new super who came from The Loop and Chicago GC, it is revealing its potential as it sits on one of the best pieces of property in the district.

Ian,     
       You are correct- I neglected to mention Glen View, Onwentsia , and another one of my favorites Briarwood. All 6's. Nice layouts that are well maintained and architecturally interesting. Probably  not tournament courses but that's not what my tier system is about. If it were , Kemper Lakes, Medinah 3, OFCC, and Butler would be the only one's listed.

[J_ Crisham]

     Tier 4: Ravisloe, Doak 5's. Fun to play but nothing real special.

Jack,


5,  Do u grade hard for lack of firmness?  The par 5s are top tier collection for me, superior to Scioto and Oakland Hills just off the top of my head.  The par 3s are superior to Inverness which isn't saying a whole lot and Indianwood and Canterbury.  The par 4's are great, 5th hole could fit on Holston Hills top 4s.  5, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 18 are very solid. Nothing special, are u serious?  My buddy Anthony thinks it is around top 20 in the Windy.  Onwentsia I hear great things about.  Let's not judge courses on whether they get 5,000 rounds, have wealthy members, a trophy room, and putt putt scorecards to tally up ones score. I agree with ur assessment of Flossmoor.  I just wish Rav could be maintained as well as Flossmoor.  I give it a 6.8 due to softness and trees

Ben,
     I think we've been down this road before-you feel Ravisloe is really good- I disagree, it is just good in my book. I haven't listed a course that I haven't played multiple times: ie at least 8-10 times. Of the top tier courses in Chicago which have you played multiple times? Do you see holes at Ravisloe that are better than specific holes at Chicago Golf? Shoreacres? Old Elm? OFCC North? Educate me on why you feel Ravisloe should be amongst the elite courses of Chicago.

[PCCraig]

Chicago GC
Shoreacres
Medinah No. 1
Olympia Fields North
Medinah No. 3
Skokie
Cog Hill No. 4
Beverly
Olympia Fields South
Flossmoor
Old Elm
Knollwood




The order is how quickly I thought of and ranked them. Rethinking the order may be different and others added, but none of these would drop out.

Tim,
    I agree with the courses you have listed. My view is that Chicago has  a 4 tier system with regards to the quality of the architecture/golf course.
   Tier 1:   Chicago Golf Club, Shoreacres, and Old Elm- arguably in the Doak 8+ range. Courses that are extremely well designed and maintained.
   Tier 2:   Butler National, Olympia Fields North, Medinah 3, Skokie, Beverly, Black Sheep, and Flossmoor. Roughly all Doak 7's .           Terrific courses that have just a few holes that are a bit mediocre.
    Tier 3: OFCC South, Medinah 1, Exmoor, Lake Shore, Elgin CC, Knollwood, Butterfield, Hinsdale, Edgewood Valley, Bob O Link, Cog Hill 4, Midlothian, Evanston and Conway Farms. Roughly Doak 6's. Very nice member courses that are fun to play.
     Tier 4: Ravisloe, Calumet, Idlewild, Naperville, Ridge, and Bryn Mawr. Doak 5's. Fun to play but nothing real special.


Tim- I welcome your thoughts on my tier system, In each tier I find the courses to be pretty much interchangeable depending on one's tastes.

This list and tiering are pretty much spot on.


Another "Doak 6" is Glen View. After Jim Urbina's work, and now with a new super who came from The Loop and Chicago GC, it is revealing its potential as it sits on one of the best pieces of property in the district.

I think Jack's commentary is pretty much spot on.


Would add GVC and Onwentsia firmly in the "2nd Tier", and I would probably add Bob O to the 2nd Tier as well after Urbina's recent work there. In my opinion those three are all better than anything else listed on the 3rd tier. 

[PCCraig]

My buddy Anthony thinks it is around top 20 in the Windy. 

Your buddy Anthony doesn't know what he's talking about, either.

[BCowan]

My buddy Anthony thinks it is around top 20 in the Windy. 

Your buddy Anthony doesn't know what he's talking about, either.

Carlton Banks chimed in

[PCCraig]

My buddy Anthony thinks it is around top 20 in the Windy. 

Your buddy Anthony doesn't know what he's talking about, either.

Carlton Banks chimed in

Ha - if I'm Carlton Banks, what does that make you? Cliff Clavin?

[Michael Wolf]

I played Riverside for the first time this week, and thought it was really solid, especially with the work they just finished on the bunkers and a few greens. Curious why it's never mentioned in Chicago discussions? and how locals think it stacks up against other Windy City offerings?


At a minimum it's gotta win Best Bridge.


MW

[Tom_Doak]

Tim,
    I agree with the courses you have listed. My view is that Chicago has  a 4 tier system with regards to the quality of the architecture/golf course.
   Tier 1:   Chicago Golf Club, Shoreacres, and Old Elm- arguably in the Doak 8+ range. Courses that are extremely well designed and maintained.
   Tier 2:   Butler National, Olympia Fields North, Medinah 3, Skokie, Beverly, Black Sheep, and Flossmoor. Roughly all Doak 7's .           Terrific courses that have just a few holes that are a bit mediocre.
    Tier 3: OFCC South, Medinah 1, Exmoor, Lake Shore, Elgin CC, Knollwood, Butterfield, Hinsdale, Edgewood Valley, Bob O Link, Cog Hill 4, Midlothian, Evanston and Conway Farms. Roughly Doak 6's. Very nice member courses that are fun to play.
     Tier 4: Ravisloe, Calumet, Idlewild, Naperville, Ridge, and Bryn Mawr. Doak 5's. Fun to play but nothing real special.


Tim- I welcome your thoughts on my tier sytem, In each tier I find the courses to be pretty much interchangeable depending on one's tastes.

FYI, a lot of these courses have actual ratings in The Confidential Guide, though I can't look them up today because I'm traveling.  Your tiers are not far off, though I did like Tim's listing of Medinah 1 ahead of #3.  He said he didn't mean to put them in that order, but I will just assume it was a Freudian slip


As to my own rankings, there are two where I consult - Chicago Golf and Shoreacres.  I let my associates )and former associates) handle a bunch of the others.  One you neglected to list is Barrington Hills, which has an above-average set of greens in a city that doesn't have so many of them.

[J_ Crisham]

Tim,
    I agree with the courses you have listed. My view is that Chicago has  a 4 tier system with regards to the quality of the architecture/golf course.
   Tier 1:   Chicago Golf Club, Shoreacres, and Old Elm- arguably in the Doak 8+ range. Courses that are extremely well designed and maintained.
   Tier 2:   Butler National, Olympia Fields North, Medinah 3, Skokie, Beverly, Black Sheep, and Flossmoor. Roughly all Doak 7's .           Terrific courses that have just a few holes that are a bit mediocre.
    Tier 3: OFCC South, Medinah 1, Exmoor, Lake Shore, Elgin CC, Knollwood, Butterfield, Hinsdale, Edgewood Valley, Bob O Link, Cog Hill 4, Midlothian, Evanston and Conway Farms. Roughly Doak 6's. Very nice member courses that are fun to play.
     Tier 4: Ravisloe, Calumet, Idlewild, Naperville, Ridge, and Bryn Mawr. Doak 5's. Fun to play but nothing real special.


Tim- I welcome your thoughts on my tier sytem, In each tier I find the courses to be pretty much interchangeable depending on one's tastes.

FYI, a lot of these courses have actual ratings in The Confidential Guide, though I can't look them up today because I'm traveling.  Your tiers are not far off, though I did like Tim's listing of Medinah 1 ahead of #3.  He said he didn't mean to put them in that order, but I will just assume it was a Freudian slip


As to my own rankings, there are two where I consult - Chicago Golf and Shoreacres.  I let my associates )and former associates) handle a bunch of the others.  One you neglected to list is Barrington Hills, which has an above-average set of greens in a city that doesn't have so many of them.

Good catch on Barrington Hills-a course rarely if ever mentioned on GCA. Another omission was Ruth Lake- a solid 5

[Tim_Cronin]

Tom, I do like Medinah 1 ahead of 3 because it's more interesting. The holes have variety. Before your renovation, it was a mini-3, which is understandable since Benedlow designed all three at Medinah. Now it has flair. No. 3, while a formidable test of golf, has so many similar holes in succession that they run together in your head, even after Rees Jones' work. Many were improved, but Jack Nicklaus' thought from decades ago still rings true: "I've never played a course with eight par-5s in a row." (And if that's not verbatim, it's close.)


Purely as an interesting set of greens, Ridgemoor's Langford and Moreau greens are wild. Dare you to find a flat lie.

[SL_Solow]

I try not to comment on Chicago rankings because of my position with the CDGA.  A couple of points.  First regarding the Confidential Guide, I suspect several of the ratings occurred before significant renovations at several courses which could have an impact.  Second, directed at Ben re Ravisloe; you are doing the course and this process a disservice by over promoting it.  It is a very nice golf course.  I grew up about 6 minutes away and have observed it over many years from the time when it, and others in the area were very successful private clubs to now, when economic developments have caused most of those in the immediate area to struggle.  Within less than a mile there are 5 very good courses and a little further a 6th.  Of those, 3 are almost universally deemed to be superior; Olympia Fields North, Olympia Fields South (post renovation), and Flossmoor (both pre and post renovation).  The remaining 3, Idlewild, Ravisloe and Calumet, each have their proponents.  They are all courses that most would find a pleasure to play on a regular basis.  By continually trying to elevate Ravisloe to a higher level, you make it almost impossible to take your comments seriously and thus discourage any real analysis of an interesting course.  My observations come from multiple plays of each of these courses over several decades.  I have close friends/ family who were or are members at each of the clubs.  I have no dog in this fight other than the desire to see reasoned discussion.  The south suburbs contained a wonderful collection of golden age courses in a concentrated area.  Demographics and economics threaten the continuation of that status.  The courses should be appreciated for what they are.

[Tim Martin]

I try not to comment on Chicago rankings because of my position with the CDGA.  A couple of points.  First regarding the Confidential Guide, I suspect several of the ratings occurred before significant renovations at several courses which could have an impact.  Second, directed at Ben re Ravisloe; you are doing the course and this process a disservice by over promoting it.  It is a very nice golf course.  I grew up about 6 minutes away and have observed it over many years from the time when it, and others in the area were very successful private clubs to now, when economic developments have caused most of those in the immediate area to struggle.  Within less than a mile there are 5 very good courses and a little further a 6th.  Of those, 3 are almost universally deemed to be superior; Olympia Fields North, Olympia Fields South (post renovation), and Flossmoor (both pre and post renovation).  The remaining 3, Idlewild, Ravisloe and Calumet, each have their proponents.  They are all courses that most would find a pleasure to play on a regular basis.  By continually trying to elevate Ravisloe to a higher level, you make it almost impossible to take your comments seriously and thus discourage any real analysis of an interesting course.  My observations come from multiple plays of each of these courses over several decades.  I have close friends/ family who were or are members at each of the clubs.  I have no dog in this fight other than the desire to see reasoned discussion.  The south suburbs contained a wonderful collection of golden age courses in a concentrated area.  Demographics and economics threaten the continuation of that status.  The course should be appreciated for what they are.

I agree re comments about ratings in the CG that don't take into account significant restoration efforts. Tom Doak maintains that he wouldn't bump up any rating more than a point on the Doak Scale regardless of restorative effort but the difference in many courses since the original CG came out more than twenty years ago is remarkable. In Tom's defense I realize that getting back to every place that claims a significant restoration is easier said than done but in the case of the new version you have three guys instead of one to get around.

[BCowan]

I try not to comment on Chicago rankings because of my position with the CDGA.  A couple of points.  First regarding the Confidential Guide, I suspect several of the ratings occurred before significant renovations at several courses which could have an impact.  Second, directed at Ben re Ravisloe; you are doing the course and this process a disservice by over promoting it.  It is a very nice golf course.  I grew up about 6 minutes away and have observed it over many years from the time when it, and others in the area were very successful private clubs to now, when economic developments have caused most of those in the immediate area to struggle.  Within less than a mile there are 5 very good courses and a little further a 6th.  Of those, 3 are almost universally deemed to be superior; Olympia Fields North, Olympia Fields South (post renovation), and Flossmoor (both pre and post renovation).  The remaining 3, Idlewild, Ravisloe and Calumet, each have their proponents.  They are all courses that most would find a pleasure to play on a regular basis.  By continually trying to elevate Ravisloe to a higher level, you make it almost impossible to take your comments seriously and thus discourage any real analysis of an interesting course.  My observations come from multiple plays of each of these courses over several decades.  I have close friends/ family who were or are members at each of the clubs.  I have no dog in this fight other than the desire to see reasoned discussion.  The south suburbs contained a wonderful collection of golden age courses in a concentrated area.  Demographics and economics threaten the continuation of that status.  The courses should be appreciated for what they are.

Shelly,


I'm going to refrain in the future to responding to you for you don't bring up any architectural rebuttles, just because u grew up 6 mins away means absolutely nothing. A guy could play his home course for 40 years and Doak could walk the course in an hour and teach the gentlemen what he missed.  I have played the Rav 3 times and reassure my view of a 6.8 and I gave Flossmoor a 7.4.  Nowhere did I say it was Shoreacres or CGC, which I haven't played yet.  As an example Ran gives MVGC a 6 and Doak gives it an 8 I believe. 2 experienced folks with a very big gap.  I don't care if everyone other then Anthony and me give it a 5, that's just group thought or their opinion. U and ur ilk have been unable to tell us why it's only a 5.  I gave examples of top 100 that I've played some once and some 10-100 times that Ravisloe par 3 and 5 grouping of holes are superior IMO. I could care less if you value my opinion on architecture, when all u do is throw ur meaningless creditials out that have nothing to do with Golf Architecture. Many of my rankings which were done prior to glancing at TGC are very similar to Tom's and other well travelled.  When you provide real architecture analysis other then neighborhood demographics I'll take your comments seriously.

[Tom_Doak]

I agree re comments about ratings in the CG that don't take into account significant restoration efforts. Tom Doak maintains that he wouldn't bump up any rating more than a point on the Doak Scale regardless of restorative effort but the difference in many courses since the original CG came out more than twenty years ago is remarkable. In Tom's defense I realize that getting back to every place that claims a significant restoration is easier said than done but in the case of the new version you have three guys instead of one to get around.

Tim:


Yes, that's why I enlisted my co-authors.  Ran did get to a couple of the courses post-restoration -- Flossmoor in particular -- and I got back to Beverly, but there are too many others to cover.  [Chicago is not the only town where courses are being restored, you know.]


My biggest problem is that anytime I go back to Chicago I've got three clients to check in on, and it doesn't leave much time to go see other places.

[SL_Solow]

Tom;  I really wasn't being critical.  I understand the logistical issues.  I was merely suggesting that the ratings aren't static because the courses aren't static.  For example, Medinah #1 is much better post renovation than it was pre-renovation ( I am sure you will agree).  But I understand that even with 4 authors, you can't get everywhere.

Ben;  I am unperturbed by your unwillingness to engage, even though you did.  My problem is not that you like Ravisloe; I thought I made that clear.  My problem is the lack of perspective.  I readily concede that the Tom Doaks of the world have greater expertise and experience than I, its one of the reasons that I have consulted with Tom and other experts from time to time going back more than 20 years.  I also concede that the rating of courses is imprecise and in many cases a matter of personal taste.  That said, attempting to place a particular course on the ladder within a geographic area where one has very little experience is very difficult.  Again, I really don't care except that overstated claims, rather than increasing interest in a deserving course , are likely to have the opposite effect, particularly when those with knowledge of the area are almost universally in disagreement.  But I am glad you like the course.  So do I.   I guess I don't like it as much as you do and there are any number of courses in Chicago that are more interesting architecturally.  An interesting thought to consider is if one of the others in the area had gone "public", would it be the object of your affection?  I am all in favor of increasing the quality of public golf; its great for the game in a variety of ways.  But the status of the course shouldn't sway our analysis either way.