I never liked 15-17 as a run of holes because
1. The bunkering is boring and repetitive
2. They are back and forth holes and it feels this way
3. Two holes leg against the lay of the land and neither is a terribly good version of the concept...plus 7 also does this (with left/right bunkering too)...too many holes employing this concept...but I really like 7s green
4. It feels like Macwell ran out of room, but they didn't. The maintenance facility has robbed 17 of its space. The fairway should be bulging well left of where it is today If management insists on trees existing between 15/16/17, when the fancy new practice facilities were built the maintenance crap along 17 should have been moved, thereby creating more space for 17 and showing hw wide 15 & 16 should be. There should be a fairway bulge right on 15...gone. I am not sure one can even gain the best angle of attack on this hole...I think its buried in crap down the left. Really, 15-17 epitizomes what has gone wrong with the course in terms of width.
5. Visually, the holes are blah
I often think a very good way to improve back n' forth holes is to create a massive fairway with odd bunker placment. I don't believe the Macwell plan called for many trees on the inside of these three holes. Also, reverse dogleg holes really need lots of space to do well. When I last saw UofM there wasn't enough fairway for any of the reverse doglegs nor did the shortside of the fairway entice play that way at all.
While I like the course a lot, my bottom line is that on that property and with those quality greens, UofM is not living up to its potential. Some of it is presentation/maintenance and some of it is an indifferent bunker scheme. Ironically, I feel the same way about Grosse Ile.
Ciao
1. As far as the bunkering is concerned a lot has changed since it was built. I recall Hills being instructed to make the course to be easier to maint. by the Athletic debt. A golf coach had significantly messed with the 13th hole.
2. ''They are back in forth holes'', These comments irk me, I don't understand how direction matters. Holes fitting the land is MOST important. The land is very good.
3. 7 is a brilliant hole due to the fact the fairway slopes downhill and to the right. It makes the player think about blowing it down the hill or taking less club off the tee to hit the fairway. I disagree with your assessment on this hole. This hole is one of many reasons why UofM is so Great. There are instances where bunkers left and right on a green are important. This is one of them. #16 I agree with you. #15 is a great hole, the best on the course for me. It defines ANGLE so well and the fairway is 42 yards wide and very close to original width. #2 isn't on the other hand. #16 fairway is very wide.
4. Again, you couldn't be more wrong. The fairway today is where it was, if anything it looks a tad bit too left. They removed all those trees to the left on 17. The bulge on #15 is there. The width is there on 15-17, but tree removal would greatly improve those holes, so we agree on that.
5. ''Visually, the holes are blah'' -
#15 visually is wonderful, with tree removal on the left it could be stellar. #16 the tee shot is great, the 2nd shot is obstructed with tree on the left for the left side of the fairway. The green bunkering is weak, agree there. Tee shot on #17 is tough for me and the tree on right encroaches on the fairway. I agree with 17, it's probably weakest hole on the course, but green saves it. I agree with you about UofM and the Ile not living up to their potential. Some great improvements with tree removal and reclaiming. The native grass is one of the biggest mistakes they have done to the course. Elephant grass (Tall Fescue in heavy soil = lost balls)