Dave
How did Hills destroy U of M? For all the hullabaloo not much was actually done to the course. The routing is the same. The greens are the same. Trees were taken out. Bunkering was replaced and some new ones added. Some tees were worked on. The nines were switched. I will grant that the University didn't get its money's worth because Hills was so ineffectual. But this is a long way from destroying the course. The way I see it, the bunkering is dull, but not a major issue. Other than that I have no real complaints, nor any real praise...
Ciao
Sean
Sean,
The bunkering was the soul of the course. Maxwell may have build the finest green complexes anywhere on the planet not in sand soil and Hills ripped them apart so they could be machine raked. I am guessing you did not play UofM before Hills, back when the bunkering was big, bad and mean. Here is an article I wrote that never got published:
University Of Michigan (The Death of a Classic)
I returned to my Alma Matter (The University of Michigan) last night to play the golf course. I have played the course three times in the thirteen years since I graduated. Each time was in an outing and I was forced to ride a cart. This was the first time I had walked since college and my first real opportunity to look at what Art Hills did to the course I learned to golf at. After 60 years of play and the rough treatment this old gem gets during football season, it needed a restoration job. Why does it matter? Because UofM is a special place. The greens are magical. The routing is inspired. #2 and #4 are two of the best holes in the state. UofM’s course used to be one of the best five university courses in the country and should be a state treasure.
Unfortunately, over time, the beautiful bunker work had fallen into disrepair. Deft hands were required to restore her to her glory. Tragically, the University of Michigan course that I loved so dearly no longer exists. I suggest that the next meeting of Redesign University take place here so everyone can see what a horrible job, done at the hands of a talentless butcher can do to a historically significant piece of property. Every single one of the brilliant MacKenzie bunkers has been shallowed, re-faced and made maintenance friendly. The deepest bunker on the course is now no more than two feet below the surface. I am sure the Super loves these easy draining Hills bunkers but they do not fit. Hills ripped the soul from this course when he homogenized its most distinguishable trait. He also built seven or eight new tees so that he could add distance. Of course, he does not understand playable lanes, so they do not fit the design intent at all. The funniest are the new tee on #3, that he built on the side of a building, shaped completely wrong for the hole or the new tee he put directly behind a tree stand on #17. Let’s take a critical eye to #3. MacKenzie built a wonderful mid-length par five. The hole goes out 225 yards and then starts turning to the left. The fairway is also sloped rather severely to the left. MacKenzie placed a terrific cross-bunker at the exterior edge of the dogleg, on top of the hill. The entire left side is mirrored in heavy trees. The tee shot required is a fade. A draw will hit the fairway and (due to the left canter of the slope) kick into the trees. A slice will end up in the sand trap. A properly executed fade will bounce into the grain of the fairway and take the slope down allowing a shot at the green in two or an easy lay-up. Hills decided to add distance to this hole. He built the tee box back and to the left. There is now no shot. A fade cannot be hit since it catches the trees on the left. A draw cannot be hit for the reasons discussed above. Adding length was not necessarily wrong. There were legitimate concerns over where MacKenzie had placed the original exterior bunker and whether the length of drives today had rendered it out of play. Someone with a clue would have built the new box back right to allow for the proper line of play to still be used.
I have been told by a very reliable source that the original plans exist and Hills did not want to see them. He preferred to wing it and do it his way. What the hell, aren't Art Hill and Dr. Alister MacKenzie mentioned in the same breath? The part of this that makes me the most insane is that Art Hills is not a Michigan man - to borrow a Bo phrase. Mike Devries went to Michigan and is the best young architect I have seen at emulating MacKenzie's style. Tom Doak has gotten rave reviews for his restoration work on MacKenzie courses. Tom and Mike are also both members of a very well respected MacKenzie course and know his stuff cold. Hell, they could have hired a drooling idiot and he at least would have known he was a drooling idiot and said, "Wow, here are MacKenzie's plans, why not do it this way." Mike and Tom both show MacKenzie's flare in their work. It is a crying shame that the regents made the decision that they did in hiring Hills but I understand why.
Early on in my sales career, I listened to a lecture by a very well respected executive. He said something that has always stuck with me - "No one was ever fired for buying IBM." His point was that taking chances incurs risk but sticking with a known commodity allows you to cover your ass. If IBM screwed up, you could always say, “It was IBM, how could I have known." I think that University regents make cowardly decisions because they are more concerned about their jobs and the perks that go with them than doing the right thing. Art Hills has done 20+ courses in Michigan. Who cares if most of them are garbage? Everyone knows his name. He was the safe choice.
I am fighting windmills today in my criticism. What if Mike Devries (Or Tom Doak) was hired and the course was criticized for having bunkers that were too penal (MacKenzie's intent). The regents would be roasted for hiring a rookie when the great Art Hills would have done the job. It is sad that there is no steward for the land. I remember a silly cartoon by Dr. Seuss with a character called The Lorax. He spent the whole cartoon saying, "I am the Lorax and I speak for the trees." All we can do is keep speaking for the trees (Or in this case our beloved courses) and hope that one day, someone will listen.