[George Pazin]

You didn't look hard enough.

 

[SL_Solow]

For a change I am going to support both sides on this one.  I think that Medinah is a difficult, long, tree lined course that looks narrower than it plays.  The difficulty of its greens is underrated.  The pros are likely to praise it because it is an exacting test of shotmaking where the choices are relatively narrow and obvious.  This appears to be what they like best.

This is also the weakness of the design.  There is very little that can be deemed interesting about the course and it lacks variety.  That is not to say that all the holes are the same, but the differences in appearance and strategy fall within a narrow range compared to many courses.

For the nonpro it is also a mixed bag.  I have played the course many times.  I am by no means a long hitter.  I have scored as low as 74 and also much higher.  It is a real test of how well I am hitting the ball.  I enjoy the experience but only occasionally because I find myself hitting a remarkable number of long irons, hybrids and fairway woods in each round.  I rarely have to make choices unless I decided to lay up rather than go for a green.  Thus for me, unless I am looking to really test my ball striking, the course is not nearly as fun as many others in the Chicago area.

A few other observations.  Rees did a nice job on the bunkering although the placement is a little formulaic and aimed at the touring pros.  While I praised the greens, the newer greens are far less interesting than the older ones.  In particular, number 2 green is far less interesting to approach or putt than the original.  However,there are more pin positions on the new green.  I agree that 17 green is better near the water than it was up on the hill.

The club is well run and contributes a lot to golf.  They have been very kind to the Chicago District Golf Association and to junior golf.  Although it is a little large to fit my ideal for a "club", it is a very neat place which reeks of golf.  It should be a good tournament, weather permitting.

All in all, Medinah has a place in the Great Big World theory.  In terms of my ideal, its not as high as some others but it certainly does a very good job of accomplishing its particular mission which is supported by its membership.

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

Well, Oakmont may be now, having gone through the tree removal.

Simple answer - I think of a universe of 17,000 courses in the US, we can afford to have a few with narrow fairways, especially in the Championship rotations.

[George Pazin]

Simple answer - I think of a universe of 17,000 courses in the US, we can afford to have a few with narrow fairways, especially in the Championship rotations.

In the grand scheme of things, I agree with you. I just think Geoff is explaining why he doesn't hold Medinah in nearly the same company as other great tests.

[Mike_Cirba]

Shel,

Are you looking at a future in diplomacy perhaps?  

Lord knows the world could use more of that at present.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Simple answer - I think of a universe of 17,000 courses in the US, we can afford to have a few with narrow fairways, especially in the Championship rotations.

In the grand scheme of things, I agree with you. I just think Geoff is explaining why he doesn't hold Medinah in nearly the same company as other great tests.

And that is kind of my question to Geoff as well.  Does he review Medinah in a grand scheme of things - this kind of course should hold a major some of the time - or does he review it in a vacuum of the design itself.

I know he thinks the design doesn't equal the quality of the land it sits on. Fair enough, but with its history (a 63, a scandal, a lawsuit) I think I can see how it came to be they way it is.  

Gca's ask critics to review it on the basis of what were we trying to do. If asked to do a muni, should a reviewer place a review in the context that its not a championship test?  If meant as a championship test (as one of three courses at Medinah) should it be reviewes as to everyday play?

IE, what is the critics paradigm, does it change, etc.  Does the local paper send an opera buff to review a rock concert?

[SL_Solow]

Jeff,  I suppose one answer is that in the Golden Age, the architect tried to build courses that could appeal to all levels of player.  The best example is St. Andrews which holds the open championship but still manages to work for the average player and even serves as a public park.  Your premise seems to assume that there must be a separation between the 2.  If so the game has fundamentally changed (equipment perhaps) but if that is the case we should recognize it and fight other battles.  Do I misinterpret your comment?   Will we get a chance to see you when you are in Chicago for the tournament?

[Kerry Gray]

What is a Championship Test?
It sounds like the USGA and PGA (less often) believe it is a test of straighness and accuracy. Perhaps occasionally that is interesting to look at.
Grow the rough, narrow the fairways, speed up the greens. And by all means, defend par!
I would not want to speak for Geoff but those are not the only ways to make a course difficult, but they certainly are the least interesting. Options and width reward the thinker who can execute the shot. Perhaps we need to widen our tastes in strategic golf options. But the elimination of  strategy in narrow, optionless golf reward the person who can execute the required shot only. The thinking is not required. Which is a better test?
If the USGA wants to test accuracy, have a Skills competition. Perhaps they could tour with the long drive guys.  
They get so wound up in keeping scores low they remove some of the key elements of competition. Who cares if they score -20, if the competition was interesting. Think old back nine at Augusta.
And if the USGA and PGA of America want to defend par, perhaps they should start with equipment and stop destroying some great golf courses.  
That's my rant.
Kerry.

[PThomas]

but even if the player has options, shouldn't he be required to hit the ball straight?  i.e.,  shouldn't the straighter hitter be rewarded for his accuracy?

[Adam Clayman]

Paul, The sport asks how many, not how. If str8 can be designed into the I&B, is str8 really testing all aspects? Or for that matter, how far one hits the ball, is also only one aspect.

I played league the other day with a guy who had one of the ugliest moves over the ball anyone has ever witnessed. But ya know what? Almost every shot ended up in a position that would be considered good.

 If golf only rewarded this narrow definition of a good shot, there would be alot fewer courses worldwide.

[Jeff Goldman]

Has anyone notice Brad Klein's write-up in SuperNews?

http://www.supernewsmag.com/news/golfweek/supernews/20060802/p31.asp?st=p31_s1.htm&t=s

Why should Geoff be taking all the hits?  

[Kerry Gray]

but even if the player has options, shouldn't he be required to hit the ball straight?  i.e.,  shouldn't the straighter hitter be rewarded for his accuracy?

He should be rewarded for hitting his ball into a better position. Quite often their is a risk/reward element to that test. So if he succeeds in carrying the bunker on the inside of the dogleg at 280 yards he will obtain a better angle to the green or perhaps a chance to the green in two (par 5). If he mishits his attempt, he may end up in the bunker or the rough and need to scramble for par.  Of course the safer route is always available but involoves a tougher second shot. So the option works best with risk/reward.
Kerry.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Shelly,

You got my basic drift. I think we all try to design for all level of players, but when you need a course that stretched from 4800 to 7600 yards, I believe it gets harder all the time.  If Tour pros aren't going to show up, eliminate the 7600 would be the easiest, and have a separate bunch of courses for them, just like the big leagues won't play in a little league stadium.

I also question just how much traditional "options" stump a good player.  So, why would a "championship test" specifically for them include options that they will figure out and use only one anyway?  I know thats a bit oversimplified, but the short version is a course for them should be more about accuracy and shot testing than choices than it is for us.

Brad's review seems pretty balanced, saying in the first pp that players who like different things will think of this course differently, a fairly self evident statement, but one that must be made!  Like I said, I have no beef with either Geoff or Brad not liking Medinah, as much as I wonder if they didn't like it before they even looked at it, or didn't like the "idea" of a Medinah.......

[Paul Richards]

My personal opinion is that the press has been a bit harsh on Medinah.

It is a great course - very tough and challenging.

It is like Winged Foot in that it is a "BIG" golf course.

I don't think I would enjoy playing it every day as it is too hard for me.

But it always is a treat to get there and play it.

Good luck this week, Medinah, in challenging the best golfers in the world and let's hope you produce a great champion!


I have a few favorites but, boy, wouldn't it be neat to see Luke Donald win this one???


 

[Tom_Doak]

Everybody in Chicago loves Medinah because they get to allude to it being the same "brawny, U.S. Open type of course" as Winged Foot, and subtly draw a comparison of Chicago courses as equal to New York courses.

But if you actually dissected them side by side, I really don't think Medinah No. 3 is anywhere near as sophisticated a design as Winged Foot West (or even Winged Foot East).

Actually Medinah is a bit closer to Bethpage Black as a comparison (but with way more trees).  Did Burbeck ever visit Chicago?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Probably not, but Rees Jones has visited both courses. I am simply interested to see what he has done to the course that made me fall in love with golf.  I suspect that I will think its a more sophisticated test, but will twinge that it is signifigantly different than I remember.

I do recall coming away from that course belieiving (in age 12) in very deep bunkers.  I recall being scared of the narrow tree lined fairways as a beginning player.

I also recall practicing on that island putting surface out front and getting into a long putt contest.  I swung through so hard on the putt I took a chunk out of the green, which I tried to carefully repair.  I have been afraid to tell that story all these years and actually fear they will turn me away at the gate next week when they see my ID.

Also, I recall Ken Killian going over there for some work, so he called the super to confirm the appointment, and in the hour it took to get there from the office, was greeted at the gate by an announcement that the super had died of a bee sting.

When I was 15, we again snuck out on a Monday and played all 54 holes.  Coming over the hill to the 17th, we saw John Marshall the long time pro, sitting in a golf cart with envelopes containing our guest fee bills of $140 each, which was lot of money for a 15 year old in 1970........

[Jeff Goldman]

I get into this more in my Golfobserver column that will be posted soon hopefully.
Geoff

Anybody seen this column?  Getting pretty close to tournament time and I haven't seen it on golfobserver.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()