News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« on: April 21, 2005, 07:22:11 AM »
Wannamoisett, Salem, and Desert Forest aren't the only ones feeling 'unloved' in the latest GD rankings.

This is from today's Chicago Tribune.


------------

Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds


April 21, 2005


Cog Hill's No. 4 course, "Dubsdread," didn't see its greens infested with crabgrass last year. Its sand traps didn't go barren. Overflowing creeks didn't trash the fairways.

And nobody, not even the pros, said the course was too easy.


   
By all accounts, No. 4 enjoyed a good season. That's why the May issue of Golf Digest has Cog Hill's owners and patrons a bit perplexed.

In its annual ranking of golf courses, "Dubsdread," the area's top public layout, fell out of America's top 100 for the first time in years. Last year, the course checked in at 60th.

Cog Hill officials took great pride in having No. 4 ranked among the nation's best. So, naturally, they are wondering why their crown jewel suffered such a big drop in a year.

"Sometimes what's popular changes over the years," course owner Frank Jemsek said. "I feel we're still a top 100 course. But it's kind of like talking about my kids. I'm prejudiced."

It seems No. 4, a fixture since 1964, fell victim to a change in Golf Digest's rating procedure. The magazine's panel consists of 800 national reviewers, with each course evaluation factored in over a 10-year period.

This year, Golf Digest decided to remove the tradition category from its review, which had been in place since 1985. According to Golf Digest course architecture critic Ron Whitten, who oversees the ratings, Cog Hill received seven (out of a possible 10) tradition points for hosting a PGA Tour event. The Western Open has been at the course since 1991.

However, Whitten said there was a feeling the tradition category unfairly "propped up" old courses at the expense of newer venues.

"We finally concluded the bonus category had outlived any useful purpose," he wrote.

As a result, the ratings went through their biggest turnover ever. There are 18 new courses on the list, which bumped out 18 incumbent courses, including Cog Hill's No. 4.

"I had our ears boxed for years about the tradition category," Whitten said. "Now that we've done it, we're hearing from the other side."

The Western Golf Association is one of those voices. Last year, Cog Hill was the sixth-toughest course on the PGA Tour.

"To me it is ridiculous to take out the tradition component," said John Kaczkowski, tournament director for the Cialis Western Open. "The truest test of a course is how well it holds up to the best players in the world. If you start at 1 and go to 18, Cog Hill is one of the strongest tests on the PGA Tour. That's why Tiger Woods and Vijay Singh play every year."

While Cog Hill fell, Rich Harvest Farms in Sugar Grove made a dramatic ascent. The course rose from 99th to 45th in the latest ratings.

Because both are Chicago-area courses, fair or not, they have been subject to comparisons. Many local golf observers wonder how Rich Harvest got ranked that high—only six spots behind fabled Chicago Golf Club in Wheaton—while Cog Hill got bumped.

Rich Harvest is the creation of Jerry Rich, who made a fortune developing computer systems for Wall Street. An avid golfer, he started designing holes on his property. Eventually he developed a full 18-hole course in 1998. Sparing no expense, Rich's course boosts lavish conditioning and several eye-popping holes. The course is set to host the 2009 Solheim Cup.

"In terms of aesthetics, Rich Harvest has it [big-time] over Cog Hill," Whitten said. "Rich Harvest has the wow factor. The only thing I can fathom is that our raters went out there not expecting much and were blown away."

However, as a golf course, Whitten says Cog Hill has "stronger shot values than Rich Harvest." In Golfweek's rankings of courses built after 1960, Cog Hill places 47th while Rich Harvest didn't make the list.

One Golf Digest rater contends Rich Harvest has too many unfair holes. The course rating is a whopping 78 from the back tees, and features an artificial grass tee on one hole.

"I don't care if a course is difficult," said the rater, who asked not to be identified. "But is it difficult and fair? There are spots where [Rich Harvest] is not fair at all. It's not a fun course for most people."

Jemsek won't engage in the debate. He knows putting down Rich Harvest won't help his cause.

For his part, Whitten says No. 4's architect, Dick Wilson, is one of his favorite course designers. He calls Cog Hill "a great public facility."

"This is just a reflection of public opinion in 2005," Whitten said. "This doesn't mean there won't be a resurgence for Cog Hill."

Jemsek is focused on looking ahead, not behind. He says he has talked to a noted architect about making some revisions to No. 4. He prefers not to mention names, "just in case it doesn't pan out."

Jemsek learned from his father, Cog Hill founder Joe Jemsek, that courses evolve over time. He remembered Joe saying at the 1975 U.S. Open at Medinah that "there's only three holes the same as when I used to play it."

While Frank Jemsek isn't planning to redo No. 4, he knows there is room for improvements.

"Fortunately, we have extra land to continue to work with to make the course better," Jemsek said. "Our goal is not only to get back on the list, but to move up on it."

esherman@tribune.com



"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

A_Clay_Man

Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2005, 08:56:26 AM »
Paul, Thanks for sharing the article.

As someone who has golfed #4 quite a few times (none recently) I'd like to touch on one aspect that seems obvious.

 The removal of the soft white silica sand that gave Dubbs it's teeth, before the PGA Tour boys got their mitts on it.

Could this be an example, showing how the pga tour mindset, motus operandi, etc. is not in-step with the rest of the majority who participate in the sport?

As for a Top 100 rating for Wilson's design... I don't buy it. The course seems forced onto the land. Maybe if the first three weren't there, and some of the great topography that Lemont offers could've been utilized and a better GOLF COURSE could be found. I love Dubbs for sentimental reasons, However,  I have evolved since those golfing days too, and IMO, the course is not one of the best 100 in the US.




PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2005, 08:57:16 AM »
which leads to the age-old question:  is Cog Hill worthy of an Open?  I recall drainage being a concern, not sure if it really is
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2005, 09:24:41 AM »

While Frank Jemsek isn't planning to redo No. 4, he knows there is room for improvements.

"Fortunately, we have extra land to continue to work with to make the course better," Jemsek said. "Our goal is not only to get back on the list, but to move up on it."


Is anyone else interpretting this to mean they'll stretch the course out because they have room and he's basing the future of his prize course on Golf Digest's ratings?!?!?

Maybe a waterfall could be retrofitted behind the 18th green to leave certain raters with the "wow" factor they're looking for....

Ken

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2005, 09:28:02 AM »
Ken -- I'm sure Paul R. will agree with that waterfall idea!
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2005, 09:40:07 AM »
Perhaps Torrey Pines could lend some advice ;)
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Matt_Ward

Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2005, 09:42:54 AM »
Paul:

The comment by the tournament director for the Western Open shows both his ignorance on what is actually being rated and the "bait and switch" tactics employed by Digest when it first created the "tradition" category and then decided to drop it.

The "tradition" category was always a prop to the old time layouts against the newer courses. The "tradition" category was thrown into the mixture out of the fiasco in which Shadow Creek leaped into the first ten of courses shortly after it opened. Digest introduced the "added" category as a way to insulate itself against its own panel and their excesses.

What's really amusing is that the removal of "tradition" clearly demonstrates how lacking in overall analysis the bulk of the Digest panel has become. Simply adding on so many more panelists has only served to dilute the vote of the top raters the magazine has in its folds. Unfortunately, Digest erred in thinking that more people would provide for better coverage --it doesn't -- it simply means you get a Yellowpages directory of courses with little credibility for the standing they now occupy.

Frankly, there is no way Cog Hill #4 is behind Rich Harvest IMHO. The bump Rich Harvest received comes from out-of-state interlopers who "cherry pick" off some of the more recent courses and it is those courses that get a boost in terms of their standing.

What's so amusing is that the nature of ratings has been turned on its head because Digest sought to re-do how it rates facilities. This "bait and switch" tactic demonstrates two things in my opinion ...

1). The "tradition" category should never have been inserted in the first place. It has nothing to do with the core architecture which is what the ratings need to be about.

2). The state / regional level should only be rated by those who live in the area. Why? These are the people who are best familiar with what is there -- they are likely to have seen the respective courses in a range of situations and not just from a one time visit. The best resource for a more complete and thorough review rests with the people who know it best -- the locals.

In sum -- Digest needs to thoroughly re-examine what is seeking to identify through its ratings. The net result of this year's top 100, and more importantly, the state ratings, is clear proof that the credibility factor is certainly lacking IMHO.


THuckaby2

Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2005, 09:45:50 AM »
Matt:

By my count that's 26 times in the last two weeks you've made this exact same point, at just about this length in terms of number of words.  Vegas over/under is 60 before you give this up.  Me?  I'm betting the over.

We get your point, Matt.  Painfully.  Give it a rest.  

But what am I saying?  That would cost me money.

Strike that.

YOU GO, BOY!  Give 'em hell!

 ;D
« Last Edit: April 21, 2005, 09:46:22 AM by Tom Huckaby »

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2005, 09:55:57 AM »
maybe Ron W should write a book listing HIS top 100, that would be interesting...

or, be granted powers that if some course is so over-ranked -- Rich Harvest?? -- than he could move it to a more appropriate place
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2005, 09:59:15 AM »
Matt,
Quote
The "tradition" category was thrown into the mixture out of the fiasco in which Shadow Creek leaped into the first ten of courses shortly after it opened.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Shadow Creek built in 1989 and the "traditon" category started in 1985?  

"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Matt_Ward

Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2005, 10:04:57 AM »
Huck:

It's an easy remedy -- if you or others don't want to hear what can easily be done -- skip my comments.

Tom -- the dropping of Cog Hill #4 is a J-O-K-E !!!

And then to replace it with Rich Harvest -- is simply laughable. Ask the guys from the area and I would bet just about anything you will find commonality on this one.

Digest set itself up for the fall it now faces. You were the loyal defender of "tradition" because Digest said so. Now, that it's out you say it was a good idea. Huck -- hate to say
this -- but you always seem to be a day late and a dollar short.

If Digest says the world is flat -- do you then march like a good solider boy and tout the company line that the world is flat.

Huck -- you are a good guy -- but being loyal to a fault doesn't help either the ratings or your personal standing.

A two-level panel can accomplish many of the remedies I have suggested. What's amusing is that Digest previously had such a system.

Tell you what -- you can keep all the panelists but allow someone as knowledgeable as Ron Whitten to designate 100-200 people as national panelists -- only he would know their identity. It is these people who would be the only votes for the courses that make the top 100 -- the rest would only have their votes used for state / regional efforts. Keep in mind the identity of the national raters would only be something that Ron would know. Over a period of time -- say every two-four years, you could rotate others onto the national panel and take those previously on it and have them return to the state / local level.

Frankly, it would provide the best of both worlds and bring back to life a word that the existing ratings has now lost ...

Credibility ...

THuckaby2

Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2005, 10:09:33 AM »
Matt:

Yahoooo!  My money is safe.  That's 27.  Keep it up!

TH

Matt_Ward

Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2005, 10:16:14 AM »
Jim K:

I don't believe the "tradition" category was created prior to the opening of Shadow Creek -- I believe it came after.

I can research and confirm.

THuckaby2

Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2005, 10:32:45 AM »
Shivas:

Well said.  That's the same thing that happened at Pasatiempo way back in the 80s, which I have ranted against before in here.  Top 100 means jack up the prices... man it was awful how it occurred there.  

Of course Pasa is semi-private, so the issues are different.  And let's just say I don't expect the prices to drop.  But it will be interesting to see if demand decreases....

TH

Pete Buczkowski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2005, 11:20:59 AM »
I have very fond memories of Cog Hill.  Funny thing is that I know practically nothing about Dubsdread...my friend got us on #1 for my bachelor party since he thought #1 has to be the best.  :o Anyways it was a damn fun time...there's a lot more to the story but that's best told over beers...  ;D

Can somebody please address if Cog Hill was worthy of its old lofty status?  

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2005, 01:02:54 PM »
Matt

When you said:

>Frankly, there is no way Cog Hill #4 is behind Rich Harvest IMHO. The bump Rich Harvest received comes from out-of-state interlopers who "cherry pick" off some of the more recent courses and it is those courses that get a boost in terms of their standing.


You nailed it on the head.


"Glitz and glamor" should be the new title to the Golf Digest rankings.


How else do you expain 14 Fazio courses in the top 100?

 :-[ :P
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2005, 01:07:26 PM »
Adam

>As someone who has golfed #4 quite a few times (none recently) I'd like to touch on one aspect that seems obvious.

>The removal of the soft white silica sand that gave Dubbs it's teeth, before the PGA Tour boys got their mitts on it.


Agreed.  I used to love the 'old' Dubs Dread - the pre-PGA Tour version - and removal of the silica sand was perhaps the worst offense of many created by the 'dumbed-down' version required to keep the Tour pros happy and coming back.

However, in their defense, they have managed to keep most of the stars coming back each year and Tiger has won the Western on more than one occasion.

The Western has an amazing history - it was considered a 'Major' for many years - and it bothers me that it has somehow dropped to a 'second-tier' event on Tour.

I don't know if its the venue, the sponsor, the host or what, but I would love to see it regain its status as a 'just-below-the-TPC' type tournament again.

"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2005, 01:11:18 PM »
Ken

>Is anyone else interpretting this to mean they'll stretch the course out because they have room and he's basing the future of his prize course on Golf Digest's ratings?!?!?

That would be my impression.  Remember, with only 7 categories now, 'resistance to scoring' and 'shot values' increase in value.  By stretching out the course and making it more difficult (frankly it was a much tougher course before the Tour got there!), Dubs can also gain because so much is predicated on how difficult it is for a scratch player playing from the back tees.  

So the lesson is that to move up the rankings, stretch it to 8000 yards and make it impossible from the tips.

 :-[ :P


>Maybe a waterfall could be retrofitted behind the 18th green to leave certain raters with the "wow" factor they're looking for....


Great idea!  Now that would take care of the extra points needed to increase the score for 'Ambiance'....


 :P :-[ :'(
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2005, 01:13:02 PM »
Paul said:

>maybe Ron W should write a book listing HIS top 100, that would be interesting...


Now this I would pay for!!


Seriously, Ron knows architecture and this last GD list goes along more with the "Architorture" theme that he wrote about a number of years ago.


 ;)
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2005, 01:16:59 PM »
Matt said:

>Tom -- the dropping of Cog Hill #4 is a J-O-K-E !!!

>And then to replace it with Rich Harvest -- is simply laughable. Ask the guys from the area and I would bet just about anything you will find commonality on this one.

>Digest set itself up for the fall it now faces.



I took an informal survey of about 25 or so golfers who've played most of the best courses in Illinois.

Not one of them could believe that Rich Harvest deserves to be on the top 100 list.  Many thought I was joking when I mentioned it to them (they obviously don't read GD or spend any time on this website!).

The concensus view is that it is a really nice course, in immaculate shape, and has a great car museum.

Top 15 in the state, maybe even number 10 in a few cases.  

But top 45 in the country?  No way.


Is Rich Harvest better than Dubs?

Only about 3 or 4 in my survey felt that way.

 :-[
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

THuckaby2

Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2005, 01:20:56 PM »
Paul R.:

Note the Vegas over/under on you making the exact same points ripping GD ratings is only slightly lower than Ward's - 55.  And I bet the under on you, figuring you had better things to do with your time.  But man you are up to 33 now and you're scaring me man.  Don't take away the winnings I'm gonna get on the Ward bet.

 ;D ;D

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2005, 01:21:29 PM »
Pete

>Can somebody please address if Cog Hill was worthy of its old lofty status?  


In a word, the answer is "Yes."  


Dubs is the second best daily fee golf course in this country - Bethpage Black is better, but that's it, at least of the courses that I have seen so far.

Is it worthy of an Open?  I don't think so, in its current state.  However, if they go back to the pre-Tour Dubs, I think it becomes Open-worthy.

It has a great variety of holes and is a real ball-buster.  

Dubs deserves to make the top 100 list, probably in the 80-90 range, IMHO.


I still believe that Dubs is the 6th or 7th best course in Illinois.


 ;) :)
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

THuckaby2

Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2005, 01:23:44 PM »
Paul:

Whew!  That's better.  An informative, well-worded post without one word ripping GD's ratings.  There remains hope both for you, and for my bet.

BTW, I loved Dubsdread the one time I played it.  I don't tend to think of things in "top 100" context but I'd say it deserves it, without going too deep into that.  I have no clue re Rich Harvest.  I believe your survey though.  But obviously you didn't survey the GD raters.  Opinions can and do differ.

Cheers, brother.

TH


Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #23 on: April 21, 2005, 01:24:03 PM »
Tom

I don't think I'm close to 33, but I have had my problems with the latest list, as you've seen.

There is a disconnect going on.  The seven categories don't seem to be capturing what defines great golf architecture and I am very hopeful that the definitions can be corrected in time for the 2007 lists.

I have a tremendous respect for Ron Whitten and I am sorry that he is taking such a beating for this 2005 list.

 :)
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cog Hill view: Magazine ratings out of bounds
« Reply #24 on: April 21, 2005, 01:25:28 PM »
Tom

>Whew!  That's better.


Thanks for the positive reply!


Cheers!!


 ;)
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG