[T.J. Sturges]

The early reviews of the latest version of Medinah (most under par rounds ever in a PGA Championship...even though they've stretched it to 7500 yards) appear troublesome.  It has been more than a decade since I've been there, but I remember the greens lacking interest and the long holes through trees lacking strategy.  With three one-shot holes that play over water, the course for me, fell far short of other championship venues I have played.  

My question is, where does Medinah stack up in Chicago?  Cog Hill seems to draw significant praise, Olympia Fields appears ahead of Medinah, throw in Chicago Golf Club, Shoreacres, Beverly and Skokie and it makes it difficult for Medinah to be considered in the top 5 in town.  Medinah IS in the top 10 in Chicago, isn't it?

TS  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ted,

While its been awhile since I have seen every Chicago course, I say it still ranks high.  As Brad noted in his video review, the Chicago style was to overcome the treeless prairie syndrome by over planting.  Most other courses there are cut of similar cloth, and Medinah has the land, the history, the clubhouse and the difficulty to  rank at the top.

There is that subset of Raynor courses, specifically Chicago with its history and Shoreacres with even better land than Medinah that would lead if your criteria was fun, not difficulty.  There are others that would lead if exclusivity was your bag.

Of course, thats just my Opinion.

[JESII]

I've never been there, but a comment by Rees Jones on the internet coverage yesterday had me scratching my head. He said the greens are built form chamionship play because they are graded to allow extremely fast green speeds. This was really troubling to me. The fact that one of the most influential architects of our time thinks the best way to challenge the top players on the greens is by giving them fast flat surfaces fully blows up everything I believe about how a golf course should challenge players.

I'm not worried about Medinah being too specialized as a major chamionship venue (ie; not practical for average golfers) because the club itself has made that decision. The fact that the PGA of America, The USGA, Rees Jones and all of the clubs his 'Open Doctor' practice has touched are under the same impression is what worries me.

This is not meant to be a Rees-bash because I would guess that as much as anything he is a tool to get a desired result, (plus the fact that I am pretty unfamiliar with his cumulative work) but he made the comments and I'll hold him to them.



Has the criteria changed in determining a US Open or PGA Chamionship venue in the last 5 or 8 years? Is it now dependent on which course (and setup) is mst likely to get Tiger, Phil etc... in contention?

[T.J. Sturges]

Jeff,

Thanks for those thoughts.  I understand how many will assign "value" to exclusivity and clubhouse, but I'm just talking about golf.  I would rather play at Chicago Golf and Shoreacres than Medinah in all days that end in Y... if none of them had a clubhouse.  Exclusivity and clubhouses aside, is Medinah still in Chicago's top 10?  I have never been to Butler, but I know it is ranked high by the locals as well. Would any Chicago experts be willing to put out their local Top 10?  I'd be interested to see where Medinah ends up.

TS

[PThomas]

Ted - I can't comment fully since I haven't played all the courses in question...but Butler would be in the top 10, I would think...Black Sheep too...

[T.J. Sturges]

To:  JES II

I had not heard those comments by Rees, but they don't surprise me.  He (and many) believe that fast greens and VERY long courses will make it tougher.  The scores yesterday (on a soft "long" 7500 yard course) show that you can't make it long enough for these guys (with this ball and equipment), and that tame greens simply don't challenge the best players in the world at any speed.  

Why does the old course still hold up to scoring?  It's the architecture.

TS

[JESII]

Ted,

In what way does the old course hold up to scoring?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ted,

Isn't it really the wind at TOC?  That 20 under winning score at TOC was a product of calm conditions and of course, Tiger.  And they have lengthened it considerably, as well.

You are right that length only goes so far. Tiger had driver-sand wedge on the long 12th, which used to be fearsome.  

Rees greens appear a bit flatter than the old ones he didn't touch.  There is obviously some correlation between speed and contours and you may think he overdid it (or underdid it, I suppose) but the majors have pretty good slope measurements of cup locations that work, and those that don't.  They don't want another Monty "de-greening" this week.

As to a list of courses, I understand your "golf only" perceptions, but not all feel the same way.  I love Raynor, too and would join either Chicago or Shoreacres based on golf - and if I could even get in, which I probably couldn't.

If you were looking to join a Chicago club, the pool, the kids activities, and maybe even admission policies (official or unoffical) might influence you, especially if the wife or boss had anything to say about it.  I wouldn't not join Medinah based on how hard No. 3 is, simply because they have two other courses.  No. 1 itself would be top 25 in Chicago, if not higher.

[Geoffrey Childs]

To:  JES II

I had not heard those comments by Rees, but they don't surprise me.  He (and many) believe that fast greens and VERY long courses will make it tougher.  The scores yesterday (on a soft "long" 7500 yard course) show that you can't make it long enough for these guys (with this ball and equipment), and that tame greens simply don't challenge the best players in the world at any speed.  
TS

Ted

I was thinking of starting a thread related to this with the premise that extreme length and "championship" conditions as discussed by Rees is really a farse.

Why do courses like Westchester CC (6800 yards) hold up to scoring so much better then Medinah?

I think the old guys got it best when they created extreme variety in their designs.  Medinah as modified over the years and mos treceently by Rees is HOMOGINIZED in its distance.  Look at the par 4's and you will see no short and tricky followed by a ball buster extremely hard-long hole. At Medinah the 4's are all in the 430-460 range and while that adds up to a 7500 yard course in the end, no one hole will cause a 4.6-4.7 scoring average. Couple this with tame slopes on the greens and a bit of moisture to make them receptive and they will go low.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Geoff,

I heard one golfer comment that the length is something that the media was focused on, going on to say they pretty much figured how to play the shots one at a time.  

While I agree with you that variety is good for everyday play, does that really apply to a championship test?  I doubt that they get fooled by having to hit a wedge one hole and nine iron the next.

Its a good topic, though, so why don't you start it?

[Tom_Doak]

"They don't want another Monty de-greening this week."

Jeff -- Do you mean the job of consulting architect is going to be reduced to PREVENTING players from making poor shots?

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoff,

I heard one golfer comment that the length is something that the media was focused on, going on to say they pretty much figured how to play the shots one at a time.  

While I agree with you that variety is good for everyday play, does that really apply to a championship test?  I doubt that they get fooled by having to hit a wedge one hole and nine iron the next.

Its a good topic, though, so why don't you start it?

Jeff

No time right now - but - I think that having 8 par 4's between 440-460 NONE of which by itself represents a great threat to your score is not nearly as interesting or challenging as a 350 yard hole with double bogey possibility AND long par 4's like 15 at Bethpage, 8 or 12 or 15 (tournament numbering) at Westchester CC where par is a really good score anytime and they will play to 4.3-4.6.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I was referring to the fact that tournament sponsoring organizations usually don't want to embarrass their players.  I presume the PGA, with its typical contingent of club pros in the field, may even be more prone to that.

And their players usually think that a putt that cannot be controlled once it leaves the putter - as in the famous Colt quote that "no putt should run from the putter like a swine possessed by the devil" is in play.  I do think greens should be designed with some correlation between speed and slope.  Don't you?

I did see one practice shot - a draw to the back left pin (even though the cup was on the right that day) on the new second spin down a pretty flat slope and nearly go in the water.  That gave me an indication that the slope on that green may have struck the right balance.  

I also noticed some pros putting from right to left off a little spline that comes into the green from the backing bunker, so they may have been thinking that they will be playing safe to the Sunday pin back left.  Problem with that theory is that if they play safe under the present conditions, they won't see anything but the Friday pin!

[T.J. Sturges]

To:  JES II

Tiger won the 2005 Open at The Old Course with a score of   -14.  He is the best player in the world.  The next best score was -9.  Take out Tiger and none of the other (mortal) players on this earth scored better than -9 on what would be considered a "short" course (very firm course that now plays 7279 yards).  In that event, 41 of the 80 players who made the cut finished under par.  

I don't know how you define resistance to scoring, but I think the fact that only half of the best players in the world broke par (and only one player shot better than 9 under for 4 rounds) would qualify as holding up quite well.  

An example of my point is the fact that the 18th is 357 yards and is certainly drivable by many of today's touring pros.  Why doesn't everybody birdie this hole?  It's the architecture...

A hole that has a 200 yard wide fairway could be 500 yards long with a flat boring green and you'd get more birdies from the tour pros.  It's not distance, it's the architecture.

TS

[Phil McDade]

Well, I'm not so sure...

Medinah's par 4s go: 434, 414, 463, 474, 435, 438, 471, 392, 453, 443.

At Pinehurst #2 at the 2005 US Open, par 4s went 401, 469, 336 (the outlier!), 472, 404, 467, 476, 449, 378, 468, 492, 442.

I don't see a whole lot of difference there. Medinah winner likely to go lower than -10; Campbell was even par to win at Pinehurst, with Tiger runner-up at +2. And I don't get the impression, based on player comments at the time, that hitting fairways at Pinehurst was terribly challenging.

So I'm not sure variety is the key to more challenge. My sense is that course set-up, some key course architectural features, and the luck-of-the-draw weather conditions play a larger role. Pinehurst was set up firm and fast, and held that way due to absence of rain softening it up. And I clearly get the impression Pinehurt's upturned saucer-cup greens are much tougher to hold than the ones so far at Medinah. Maybe it's an apples and oranges (PGA vs. USGA) comparison. But I don't get the sense that variety in and of itself is the key to more challenging scoring. It's clearly more fun to watch, in my view, but in going over major tournament scoring the past decade or so, it seems largely determined by course set-up, weather and key architectural features (tough greens, narrow fairways, others...)

[T.J. Sturges]

It is interesting where this discussion has gone.

However, can anybody out there who really knows the golf landscape in Chicago provide a list of top courses (in order)?  I'm still curious to see where Medinah fits in.

TS

[ChasLawler]

1. Chicago Golf Club
2. Beverly
3. Shoreacres
4. Olympia Fields (North)
5. Medinah #3

Never mind the order in which these are listed (that's all subjective). Prove to me why any course not on this list should be ahead of Medinah.

[John Kavanaugh]

As someone who lives in Illinois and lived in Chicago for ten years the list is more like:

1. Medinah
2. Butler
3. Bob-o-Link
4. Olympia Fields
5. The rest..

[T_MacWood]

And their players usually think that a putt that cannot be controlled once it leaves the putter - as in the famous Colt quote that "no putt should run from the putter like a swine possessed by the devil" is in play.

Interesting quote...are you sure Colt said it?

I'm surprised Chicago isn't included in both top 5 lists and surprised Skokie is not included in either.

[John_Conley]

Does Old Elm register?  I've heard differing things.  Top 5?  Top 10?  No?

[JR Potts]

I know this is a bit off topic but since you guys went there, I will respond.

How many of you actually played the old greens at Medinah?  Although I think there were consistently faster and more interesting, anyone who has played those greens must admit that they were patently unfair.

For instance, if the pin was in the middle on the old number 2, you would putt the ball up and down the hill all day long.  Moreover, the 13th and the 17th greens were totally unusable.  They had two pin placements - on the right and on the left.  Although those greens made for fun stories and interesting putts, they were wholly inadequate for a golf course that gets as much play as #3.

And Jones was right, the current greens would be great under ideal tournament conditions (fast and hard).  However, for whatever reasond, we don't have those this week.  Nevertheless, in my estimation, the course has held up very well.  Now let's just hope the wind blows.

[Gerry B]

chicago golf club
shoreacres
olypia fields north
beverly
medinah

[JESII]

To:  JES II

Tiger won the 2005 Open at The Old Course with a score of   -14.  He is the best player in the world.  The next best score was -9.  Take out Tiger and none of the other (mortal) players on this earth scored better than -9 on what would be considered a "short" course (very firm course that now plays 7279 yards).  In that event, 41 of the 80 players who made the cut finished under par.  

I don't know how you define resistance to scoring, but I think the fact that only half of the best players in the world broke par (and only one player shot better than 9 under for 4 rounds) would qualify as holding up quite well.  

An example of my point is the fact that the 18th is 357 yards and is certainly drivable by many of today's touring pros.  Why doesn't everybody birdie this hole?  It's the architecture...

A hole that has a 200 yard wide fairway could be 500 yards long with a flat boring green and you'd get more birdies from the tour pros.  It's not distance, it's the architecture.

TS

Ted,

I am sure the architecture at St. Andrews Old is phenomenal, however I've never been there, but...7300 yards par 72 is not short (It may not be long by todays Tour level standard, but it is not short), and over half the field was under par in tournament conditions on a course set-up artificially difficult.

I would suggest that TOC is struggling to "hold up" as you say. I would also suggest that it doesn't need to. Many more tee shots from out of bounds to in bounds might just get ridiculous.

[Dave Bourgeois]

The way this discussion has gone is interesting.

When you look at the old adage of "I used every club in the bag, a great course" what good is a golf course with all these driver 6, 5 4 iron par 4's up to 500+ yards?  All it does is bunch the field.  There is only one way to play the hole so there is bunching.

CREATE DOUBT!

That makes a great test of golf.  Short holes, short grass and uneven lies Über Alles.

I really love the concept of doubt for the average player, but does that really work for players at tour level who, with their caddies, study the course?  For me though I couldn't agree more, about what I like in a golf course.  If it is NOT "right out in front of me" I like it even more!

I would love to ask the tour players a question about their leisure golf.  If they weren't playing for the livelihood would they rather play a course like Crystal Downs or something more "all in front"?

**Sorry that this has nothing to do with Medinah or golf in Chicago.....I was only in town once and ate myself stupid**  

[Phil McDade]

Dave:

I do know Brad Faxon -- when the Open was being held on the western coast of Scotland recently -- made his way over to Machrihanish (at less than 6,300, hardly a challenge for today's pro players and their equipment) and just raved about it. Faxon's a bit of an odd duck among his colleagues, though, when it comes to golf history and architecture and links golf -- he has a true appreciation for it (witness him this year sitting around Hoylake, waiting to get in as an alternate, rather than playing back in the US).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()