[Mike_DeVries]

Seems to me like this would be a no-brainer for a place like Michigan.  I don't really understand why places like Michigan and Yale, etc. don't maximize what they have in the ground.  Seems like for a relatively modest amount of money, at least by University budget standards, these courses could be presented in a much better fashion...Seems as if it would be great for recruiting and Alumni contributions.  Don't a large percentage of very successful alumni play golf? Wouldn't they be more likely to visit campus more often, and be more involved in alumni groups, and therefore donate more, if there was a world-class course presented in very good fashion? Is it not possible to still provide for reasonable greens fees for students and faculty yet upgrade the course conditioning?  I know times are tough and endowments have dropped significantly, but this smacks of not seeing the forest for the trees to me....

Jud

I largely agree with Chuck.  I don't know that the course can really be improved that much and that slight improvement may not be worth the cost.  What we (well Mike) are really talking about is a return to some of the Max-Mac stuff that was there - namely some larger greens and tree removal.  While the tree removal aspect is always welcome imo, the larger green situation doesn't necessarily improve the course.  For example, the 4th is a huge green now, does it need to be any bigger?  Though I do think there is something wrong with the 6th - if using a back left hole location is a goal.  This said, I would still welcome the university hiring an archie if only to keep things on an even keel. 

Ciao

Sean,
If you are going to do the course justice by re-establishing the greens to their original intentions (certainly one of the great and lasting impressions of the ODG’s work, I believe), why would we pick and choose one green and leave another out?  Shouldn’t we do them all, even if one of them is extraordinarily large?  I think the 4th green would be even cooler and provide another element to the course with its massive putting surface.  And, let’s be clear that all the greens probably are missing a corner here or there.
Cheers,
Mike

[PCCraig]

Thanks for the great discussion on this thread.

I played U of Michigan's course a couple times about five years ago when visiting a friend taking summer school. Loved the course (esp. the short par-4's and the horseshoe green) and would agree that the three biggest requirements needed to get it back into national prominence would be

1) Go crazy with a chainsaw and cut down darn near every tree still remaining (there are some fantastic natural landscapes there that are blocked due to tree cover).

2) Restore the greens to as close to their original size as possible. Sean makes a good point about the bunkers encroaching on the old green sites...not sure those bunkers are worth moving for a couple yards of extra green, but there are areas that could easily be restored.

3) Maintenance...In the couple times I played there I didn't think it was in as good of shape as it could of been. But the #1 goal should be cutting trees down and replacing with natural high grass areas. In doing so I would assume the cost to maintain the course would go down over the long term.

Maybe it's just me but it seems it would be a tough sell to the school to pay for another "restoration" just years after the last one. But a motivated GCA could sell them on these simple changes that could seriously improve the course and its maintenance budget. Perhaps the greatest selling tool would be Yale's experience with their course??

[Sean_A]

Seems to me like this would be a no-brainer for a place like Michigan.  I don't really understand why places like Michigan and Yale, etc. don't maximize what they have in the ground.  Seems like for a relatively modest amount of money, at least by University budget standards, these courses could be presented in a much better fashion...Seems as if it would be great for recruiting and Alumni contributions.  Don't a large percentage of very successful alumni play golf? Wouldn't they be more likely to visit campus more often, and be more involved in alumni groups, and therefore donate more, if there was a world-class course presented in very good fashion? Is it not possible to still provide for reasonable greens fees for students and faculty yet upgrade the course conditioning?  I know times are tough and endowments have dropped significantly, but this smacks of not seeing the forest for the trees to me....

Jud

I largely agree with Chuck.  I don't know that the course can really be improved that much and that slight improvement may not be worth the cost.  What we (well Mike) are really talking about is a return to some of the Max-Mac stuff that was there - namely some larger greens and tree removal.  While the tree removal aspect is always welcome imo, the larger green situation doesn't necessarily improve the course.  For example, the 4th is a huge green now, does it need to be any bigger?  Though I do think there is something wrong with the 6th - if using a back left hole location is a goal.  This said, I would still welcome the university hiring an archie if only to keep things on an even keel. 

Ciao

Sean,
If you are going to do the course justice by re-establishing the greens to their original intentions (certainly one of the great and lasting impressions of the ODG’s work, I believe), why would we pick and choose one green and leave another out?  Shouldn’t we do them all, even if one of them is extraordinarily large?  I think the 4th green would be even cooler and provide another element to the course with its massive putting surface.  And, let’s be clear that all the greens probably are missing a corner here or there.
Cheers,
Mike

Mike

I am the sort of guy who would rather go through each hole and green, case by case, to make decisions on change, what sort of change and the bang for the buck.  While the original Max/Mac ideas are important, they are not imo, the be all and end all.  I am more concerned that the end product is good value for money and of high quality rather than a die hard Max/Mac (or whoever) renovation.

Ciao

[Chuck Brown]

As is the case with the appreciataion of superior golf course designs over time, the more I read Mike DeVries' comments, the truer they become for me.  I'd gladly nominate Mike's name to David Brandon tomorrow.

One thing about U-M; length.  It is profoundly landlocked, with little room to move tees.  I saw what the NCAA players did to Inverness last summer, first hand.  Terrifying distances.

[Mike_DeVries]

Seems to me like this would be a no-brainer for a place like Michigan.  I don't really understand why places like Michigan and Yale, etc. don't maximize what they have in the ground.  Seems like for a relatively modest amount of money, at least by University budget standards, these courses could be presented in a much better fashion...Seems as if it would be great for recruiting and Alumni contributions.  Don't a large percentage of very successful alumni play golf? Wouldn't they be more likely to visit campus more often, and be more involved in alumni groups, and therefore donate more, if there was a world-class course presented in very good fashion? Is it not possible to still provide for reasonable greens fees for students and faculty yet upgrade the course conditioning?  I know times are tough and endowments have dropped significantly, but this smacks of not seeing the forest for the trees to me....

Jud

I largely agree with Chuck.  I don't know that the course can really be improved that much and that slight improvement may not be worth the cost.  What we (well Mike) are really talking about is a return to some of the Max-Mac stuff that was there - namely some larger greens and tree removal.  While the tree removal aspect is always welcome imo, the larger green situation doesn't necessarily improve the course.  For example, the 4th is a huge green now, does it need to be any bigger?  Though I do think there is something wrong with the 6th - if using a back left hole location is a goal.  This said, I would still welcome the university hiring an archie if only to keep things on an even keel. 

Ciao

Sean,
If you are going to do the course justice by re-establishing the greens to their original intentions (certainly one of the great and lasting impressions of the ODG’s work, I believe), why would we pick and choose one green and leave another out?  Shouldn’t we do them all, even if one of them is extraordinarily large?  I think the 4th green would be even cooler and provide another element to the course with its massive putting surface.  And, let’s be clear that all the greens probably are missing a corner here or there.
Cheers,
Mike

Mike

I am the sort of guy who would rather go through each hole and green, case by case, to make decisions on change, what sort of change and the bang for the buck.  While the original Max/Mac ideas are important, they are not imo, the be all and end all.  I am more concerned that the end product is good value for money and of high quality rather than a die hard Max/Mac (or whoever) renovation.

Ciao

Ciao 

Sean,

I wouldn't be doing it just to restore MacK's and Maxwell's vision -- the greens are the most important aspect of a course and their re-establishment would improve and increase variety and playability of the course.  As Chuck and others have noted, length as a factor in defense is not a possibility (nor should it be the main component for almost all courses) and with the college players using this course, we will need to provide as much interest and diversity as possible.  For me, the main priority to achieve that is green restoration, not selectively picking and choosing this hole over another (maybe in phasing due to costs, but don't disregard one hole over another) -- they will not all be comparable as to the amount of work but at least get them all correct.

Best,
Mike

[PCCraig]

As is the case with the appreciataion of superior golf course designs over time, the more I read Mike DeVries' comments, the truer they become for me.  I'd gladly nominate Mike's name to David Brandon tomorrow.

One thing about U-M; length.  It is profoundly landlocked, with little room to move tees.  I saw what the NCAA players did to Inverness last summer, first hand.  Terrifying distances.

Isn't building defined, risk/reward greens the best way to defend against length? I would assume some of those greens at UM do that better than many other college courses. For example, many college kids could probably hit their drives pretty close if not onto the short-par 4's there, but if they miss the green it's not an easy up and down or short pitch.

[Mike_DeVries]

As is the case with the appreciataion of superior golf course designs over time, the more I read Mike DeVries' comments, the truer they become for me.  I'd gladly nominate Mike's name to David Brandon tomorrow.

One thing about U-M; length.  It is profoundly landlocked, with little room to move tees.  I saw what the NCAA players did to Inverness last summer, first hand.  Terrifying distances.

Isn't building defined, risk/reward greens the best way to defend against length? I would assume some of those greens at UM do that better than many other college courses. For example, many college kids could probably hit their drives pretty close if not onto the short-par 4's there, but if they miss the green it's not an easy up and down or short pitch.

Pat,

Good question and I believe good, short fours are always a prime element of the best courses.  There needs to be a balance and with larger putting surfaces, you will have a variety of recovery and approach shots to the greens -- only the most inventive gofers will score well in such situations and that is one of the reasons that the UM's Blue course is still a viable and good test for the college players.

Mike

[Sean_A]

Seems to me like this would be a no-brainer for a place like Michigan.  I don't really understand why places like Michigan and Yale, etc. don't maximize what they have in the ground.  Seems like for a relatively modest amount of money, at least by University budget standards, these courses could be presented in a much better fashion...Seems as if it would be great for recruiting and Alumni contributions.  Don't a large percentage of very successful alumni play golf? Wouldn't they be more likely to visit campus more often, and be more involved in alumni groups, and therefore donate more, if there was a world-class course presented in very good fashion? Is it not possible to still provide for reasonable greens fees for students and faculty yet upgrade the course conditioning?  I know times are tough and endowments have dropped significantly, but this smacks of not seeing the forest for the trees to me....

Jud

I largely agree with Chuck.  I don't know that the course can really be improved that much and that slight improvement may not be worth the cost.  What we (well Mike) are really talking about is a return to some of the Max-Mac stuff that was there - namely some larger greens and tree removal.  While the tree removal aspect is always welcome imo, the larger green situation doesn't necessarily improve the course.  For example, the 4th is a huge green now, does it need to be any bigger?  Though I do think there is something wrong with the 6th - if using a back left hole location is a goal.  This said, I would still welcome the university hiring an archie if only to keep things on an even keel. 

Ciao

Sean,
If you are going to do the course justice by re-establishing the greens to their original intentions (certainly one of the great and lasting impressions of the ODG’s work, I believe), why would we pick and choose one green and leave another out?  Shouldn’t we do them all, even if one of them is extraordinarily large?  I think the 4th green would be even cooler and provide another element to the course with its massive putting surface.  And, let’s be clear that all the greens probably are missing a corner here or there.
Cheers,
Mike

Mike

I am the sort of guy who would rather go through each hole and green, case by case, to make decisions on change, what sort of change and the bang for the buck.  While the original Max/Mac ideas are important, they are not imo, the be all and end all.  I am more concerned that the end product is good value for money and of high quality rather than a die hard Max/Mac (or whoever) renovation.

Ciao

Ciao 

Sean,

I wouldn't be doing it just to restore MacK's and Maxwell's vision -- the greens are the most important aspect of a course and their re-establishment would improve and increase variety and playability of the course.  As Chuck and others have noted, length as a factor in defense is not a possibility (nor should it be the main component for almost all courses) and with the college players using this course, we will need to provide as much interest and diversity as possible.  For me, the main priority to achieve that is green restoration, not selectively picking and choosing this hole over another (maybe in phasing due to costs, but don't disregard one hole over another) -- they will not all be comparable as to the amount of work but at least get them all correct.

Best,
Mike

Mike

Thanks for the reply.  You have me at a disadvantage because I have never seen detailed green-site plans or been around when it was convenient to see where some old green lines were.  This is one reason I say for me it is important to look at each hole in a case by case basis.  I don't see the original greens as "correct", they are merely the original greens.  Some may have been better, some may have been worse, some may even be improved without Max/Mac plans in hand.  I don't consider this an ad hoc approach, just a careful and cautious approach.  One designed to get the best out of the land for a reasonable sum of money.  Just from personal experience, the first green I would look at is the 6th.  To me its a problem because the "Sunday" hole locations are problematical with the green speeds of today - especially if there is any desire to keep the greens firm - which there most certainly should be if we are talking about one of the aspect of the course being a decent challenge for good college players.  All of this said, I am not convinced the course would be that much better with a major renovation.  I still believe the best place to start is cutting down trees, deepening bunkers and finding a way to make it a goal to keep the greens firm.  

Ciao

[Mike_DeVries]

Mike

Thanks for the reply.  You have me at a disadvantage because I have never seen detailed green-site plans or been around when it was convenient to see where some old green lines were.  This is one reason I say for me it is important to look at each hole in a case by case basis.  I don't see the original greens as "correct", they are merely the original greens.  Some may have been better, some may have been worse, some may even be improved without Max/Mac plans in hand.  I don't consider this an ad hoc approach, just a careful and cautious approach.  One designed to get the best out of the land for a reasonable sum of money.  Just from personal experience, the first green I would look at is the 6th.  To me its a problem because the "Sunday" hole locations are problematical with the green speeds of today - especially if there is any desire to keep the greens firm - which there most certainly should be if we are talking about one of the aspect of the course being a decent challenge for good college players.  All of this said, I am not convinced the course would be that much better with a major renovation.  I still believe the best place to start is cutting down trees, deepening bunkers and finding a way to make it a goal to keep the greens firm.  

Ciao

Sean,

I don't think we are talking about two very different ideas.  The major renovation they did before had a lot of other infrastructure items included (irrigation, rebuilding tees, drainage, etc.) that would take up a considerable amount of $.  Removing trees on an existing golf course is also not inexpensive, due to course damage from equipment and stump removal, etc.  Deepening bunkers is a labor intensive job also that involves material handling and drainage, so not inexpensive.  Notice that I haven't talked about the architecture of these elements yet, just the actual physical construction parts.

When doing any work on the course it is important to take into account all the elements first to ensure that you don't step on another feature when just looking at that element.  So, your point about looking "at each hole in a case by case basis" is not that far off and all of these features are inter-related to each other and need to be considered within the whole hole and golf course.  I would not separate out just trees and bunkers without considering greens (which I would place at the highest priority) and looking at all the features on the course before settling on one approach or another.  And, I still think the 3 most important and cost-effective measures will be green expansion, tree removal, and bunker modification.

Best,
Mike

[Jud_T]

So let's set up a meeting with the new AD!

[Sean_A]

Mike

Thanks for the reply.  You have me at a disadvantage because I have never seen detailed green-site plans or been around when it was convenient to see where some old green lines were.  This is one reason I say for me it is important to look at each hole in a case by case basis.  I don't see the original greens as "correct", they are merely the original greens.  Some may have been better, some may have been worse, some may even be improved without Max/Mac plans in hand.  I don't consider this an ad hoc approach, just a careful and cautious approach.  One designed to get the best out of the land for a reasonable sum of money.  Just from personal experience, the first green I would look at is the 6th.  To me its a problem because the "Sunday" hole locations are problematical with the green speeds of today - especially if there is any desire to keep the greens firm - which there most certainly should be if we are talking about one of the aspect of the course being a decent challenge for good college players.  All of this said, I am not convinced the course would be that much better with a major renovation.  I still believe the best place to start is cutting down trees, deepening bunkers and finding a way to make it a goal to keep the greens firm.  

Ciao

Sean,

I don't think we are talking about two very different ideas.  The major renovation they did before had a lot of other infrastructure items included (irrigation, rebuilding tees, drainage, etc.) that would take up a considerable amount of $.  Removing trees on an existing golf course is also not inexpensive, due to course damage from equipment and stump removal, etc.  Deepening bunkers is a labor intensive job also that involves material handling and drainage, so not inexpensive.  Notice that I haven't talked about the architecture of these elements yet, just the actual physical construction parts.

When doing any work on the course it is important to take into account all the elements first to ensure that you don't step on another feature when just looking at that element.  So, your point about looking "at each hole in a case by case basis" is not that far off and all of these features are inter-related to each other and need to be considered within the whole hole and golf course.  I would not separate out just trees and bunkers without considering greens (which I would place at the highest priority) and looking at all the features on the course before settling on one approach or another.  And, I still think the 3 most important and cost-effective measures will be green expansion, tree removal, and bunker modification.

Best,
Mike

Mike

I don't think we are really talking different things.  Probably the biggest difference has to do with where we are coming from.  The Max/Mac deal is important to me, but only to the point of getting the best bang for the buck.  If I can get a bigger bang doing something else or nothing, that is the road I would take.  I suspect you want Max/Mac not solely because its Max/Mac, but because you likely believe Max/Mac is the best bang for the buck.  I too could very well end up at your finishing line, but at a turtle's pace.  However, this shouldn't be surprising as you have experience in these matters and I am only the poor slob who has to pay for it.  
  
Yes, I know digging up courses costs serious dosh, and if I were a project manager I would be very cautious.  All plans sound wonderful in the initial stages.  How wonderful they really are is only discovered once the invoices start rolling in.  Unlike John Candy, I am conservative by nature and prefer to take a view before pulling any triggers.  For instance, if I were the guy holding the purse for renovation at U of M, you would have to do a lot of leg work to convince me that the course would be X amount better for X amount spent on it.  As Doak said once, renovations, if done really well, may push the quality of a course up one notch on the scale.  Us GCAers live in a cocoon of unreal suppositions and don't often give proper heed to the cost in getting some of these details just so.  

BTW - Have a chat with Doak.  I find it incredible that he gave UofM a 3.  Using his scale I see the course as a solid 6.  Perhaps it could hit 7 if things were adjusted.  Now, what do you reckon it would cost, at a minimum, to get that one digit increase?  Perhaps I give the course too much credit and that may help to explain why I don't think it can really be "improved" that much.

Ciao

[Chuck Brown]

BTW - Have a chat with Doak.  I find it incredible that he gave UofM a 3.  Using his scale I see the course as a solid 6.  Perhaps it could hit 7 if things were adjusted.  Now, what do you reckon it would cost, at a minimum, to get that one digit increase?  Perhaps I give the course too much credit and that may help to explain why I don't think it can really be "improved" that much.

Ciao

Sean, I for one am going to give Tom a pass.  When he wrote The Confidential Guide was when the U Course was at its most-abused.  At that point, Art Hills had not even been considered for a renovation, and yet at the same time, they had used the course for a couple of Michigan Opens, in which some idiot had thought that the overgrown trees would make for a good defense.

I have a friend, a UNC golfer in Jack Nicklaus's era, who has been a GD Course rater, has played in the North-and-South, and the Crosby, and has also won the Michigan Am many times.  I was following him in a Michigan Open.  He was the leading am, within striking distance of the leaders.  The second time that he hit a ball under a spruce tree whose branches hung to the ground, leaving him unplayable, he walked off the course.

[Sean_A]

BTW - Have a chat with Doak.  I find it incredible that he gave UofM a 3.  Using his scale I see the course as a solid 6.  Perhaps it could hit 7 if things were adjusted.  Now, what do you reckon it would cost, at a minimum, to get that one digit increase?  Perhaps I give the course too much credit and that may help to explain why I don't think it can really be "improved" that much.

Ciao

Sean, I for one am going to give Tom a pass.  When he wrote The Confidential Guide was when the U Course was at its most-abused.  At that point, Art Hills had not even been considered for a renovation, and yet at the same time, they had used the course for a couple of Michigan Opens, in which some idiot had thought that the overgrown trees would make for a good defense.

I have a friend, a UNC golfer in Jack Nicklaus's era, who has been a GD Course rater, has played in the North-and-South, and the Crosby, and has also won the Michigan Am many times.  I was following him in a Michigan Open.  He was the leading am, within striking distance of the leaders.  The second time that he hit a ball under a spruce tree whose branches hung to the ground, leaving him unplayable, he walked off the course.

Chuck

Yes, I recall the ground hugging trees from back in the early-mid 80s.  Still, a 3?  I would have thought the greens and terrain would have deserved a 5.  I just don't buy that tree removal improves the course that many slots - from a 3 to a 6?  There is some lost ground here.  I get the impression that Doak must believe the bones of the course aren't worth much let alone underpin what is a very good course. 

Ciao     

[Jud_T]

I know all this can be expensive and now is not the time to be asking for a lot of dough, but it'd be nice to know that they have the right core values and a long term plan to at least not allow any further encroachment on the course etc....

[Chuck Brown]

I know all this can be expensive and now is not the time to be asking for a lot of dough, but it'd be nice to know that they have the right core values and a long term plan to at least not allow any further encroachment on the course etc....

Jud - I'm not worried about any "encroachment."  The course's natural and original boundaries on three sides are State St., Stadium Blvd., and Main St.  The fourth side, and another corner, are University-owned.  And part of that is now land our own golf course operations have 'encroached' on, in the form of a nifty new practice area for the teams!

If we had our own T. Boone Pickens in Ann Arbor (i.e., Google) who knows but what the neighboring Ann Arbor Golf and Outing club could be made part of our University golf complex.  I see nothing but incredibly good things for the whole site.  (What do you suppose the ask-price would be for AAG&O?)

[Richard Choi]

BTW, completely off topic - getting Dorsey was a nice way to end the day. I expect at least 4 to 5 of these true freshmen will get significant playing time next year. I am really looking forward to it.

[Chuck Brown]

BTW, completely off topic - getting Dorsey was a nice way to end the day. I expect at least 4 to 5 of these true freshmen will get significant playing time next year. I am really looking forward to it.

Yeah, waayy off topic, and totally irresistable, looks like 2010 Michigan recruiting class will be about #15 in the nation.  Huge years for Texas and Penn State.  Another ho-hum year of monster recruiting for the Florida Gators.  They need a new nickname.  The Florida Five-Stars.  Dorsey had been a Florida commit.  

[Sean_A]

Take a look at the updated tour.  U of M continues to impress me after each round.  I have a load of time for the old girl and believe it is one of the top draws in the Ann Arbor/Detroit area. 

Ciao

[J Sadowsky]

BTW, completely off topic - getting Dorsey was a nice way to end the day. I expect at least 4 to 5 of these true freshmen will get significant playing time next year. I am really looking forward to it.

Sigh.....

[Brian Potash]

wait wait wait!!!

I navigate from michigan.rivals.com to golfclubatlas.com to get AWAY from thinking about my team.

Please do not do this to me again until we can win back to back big 10 games.

Thank you.

Brian

[PCCraig]

Take a look at the updated tour.  U of M continues to impress me after each round.  I have a load of time for the old girl and believe it is one of the top draws in the Ann Arbor/Detroit area. 

Ciao

Sean:

Thanks for updating the thread with more recent photos. It's been a few years since I played the course and I forgot how neat the 3rd, 4th, and especially the horseshoe 6th and 14th greens are. I wish the horseshoe green was used more often...the only other one I've seen recently that I can think of is at Crooked Stick in Indy (the par-5 15th, I believe).

[Jud_T]

How about a 2011 Fall outing?

[Brent Carlson]

Gents,

Today I had the chance to have a game at the UMGC for the first time in five years.  It is always a very enjoyable round at the U course.

I noticed that trees were removed behind the fifth green, behind the seventh green, on the landing area for 18, and probably more.  On five it really looks good; opening up the view all the way to the boomerang sixth green.  Seven now has a view to State St.  There were likely even more trees removed throughout the course. 

When in the clubhouse I asked about the changes.  The staff mentioned that Mike (DeVries) is doing work to bring back the original MacKenzie design over the next 5-6 years.  This is very good news as the course has the potential to be even better.

What's the latest on the changes?  Is Brandon committed to bringing out the best in the design?  We know he is a golfer.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Sean where do you park on game days? I did not see  car tracks on any of the holes. It looks good in fact I am not seeing as much Art destruction as I had been led to believe was there.

[Sean_A]

I heard rumours that Mike was getting down and dirty in Ann Arbor.  Its very fine!

Tiger

I know folks say parking didn't happen on the course, but it used to as I saw it with my own eyes.  There is an entrance off State St and cars poured in on the lower stretches of the course along #s 1 & 9 and the practice area.  This is no longer the case, but they may still park between the 1st and 9th in an old practice area.  Still, the course which was really used for parking (and which is shown in the aerial in Doak's book) is next door, Ann Arbor G&OC - a nine holer with some good holes.  

The destruction of UoM was and is greatly exaggerated.  There is no question Hills was the wrong man for the job, but he didn't do all that much.  In fact, the entire redo was more of a hype job than anything else.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()