Mike - Without re-reading the entire thread, my recollection was that the last time you saw the course was late in the restoration work (I'll use the word "resotration" - debate it if you wish) being done by Hills' guys. I agreed, and still agree, with almost everything you say. The course was hideously overplanted with pine trees. Hills removed many of them. More could be removed. You are 110% correct about the mowing lines on the greens and their consequent diminishment. I think I understand what you are saying about the bunkers, and I think I agree. I got the impression, however, that all of the Hills work had not been completed when you last visited.
It would be my great pleasure to take you out there this year when and if you have the time.
Jud - All of the nitpicking on a thread like this might leave one with the impression that the course just sucked. It doesn't. It is a wonderful bit of land, and an exceptionally nice layout, with lots of Mackenzie and Maxwell apparent. I've played Yale, and practically lived at Michigan. They both suffered through a long period of inattention. And architectural vandalism in the form of tree-planting. Hills' work at Michigan might well be the subject of criticism from Mike DeVries, but I would strongly argue that the main credits to Hills are that he (a) didn't screw anything up; his work was rather modest and little-changing of the original design, and (b) helped a good bit in terms of restorative quality. If the credo is "First, do no harm," I think Hills did okay. Compare the Nicklaus re-working of Mackenzie's Scarlet Course at Ohio State. It was all 1000% more invasive than anything done at Michigan. Michigan remains far more "original" than any other Mackenzie/Maxwell course I can think of, quite possibly including Crystal Downs.
Chuck,
I haven’t been on the course since late 1994-1995, so that is post-restoration, and certainly not privy to anything that has happened since then. I would enjoy getting out to the course again, just haven’t been in the Ann Arbor area to do so (with the exception of a fall football Saturday, when the family doesn’t want me to drag them around the course to look at it), but if I am heading through that area, I hope to have the time to meet up with you to tour and discuss.
The course is intact but it certainly isn’t original (see comments below) and not nearly as intact as the features at Crystal Downs.
Please see copies of previous responses I made in 2008 below -- I believe they are still accurate.
Best,
Mike
Reply #44
Let's clarify some things -- the $3M renovation was $1M for each of the following: golf course work, maintenance endowment, and clubhouse renovation.
Next, the Hills "restoration" was anything but that. About 400 trees were removed (a lot more need to be taken out still -- poor species, poor locations, infringement on playing options, etc.) and all the bunkers were "restored" with the use of some 1930's aerials -- not comprehensive but a significant number. Still the bunkers were not restored as faithfully as they should have been and many were expanded into areas that were not part of the bunkers originally or into zones that affect other aspects of the course.
The greens in their existing state were not touched, as dictated by the University, BUT the greens were not restored out to their original HUGE sizes as they should have been. If you think the greens are fun now, think about what some other pin locations that are tucked further around the corner would be like! What about lag putts of 30+ yards?!?!? Now, here is the kicker -- although they didn't touch the greens, when they redid bunkers and reworked around the exterior of the greens, they impacted and changed grade in many instances in original green surface!!!!!!!! That makes me cringe every time I think about it.
This is not an uninformed opinion -- information is gathered by seeing the photographs from the 1930's, talking with a friend (excellent player shooting his age in his 70's at the time) who grew up across the street and caddied and played the course from its beginning, and spending time on the course playing and studying the features while at school and during the renovation for about a month (actually leveled tees for the construction team, as I knew some of the guys and they needed an extra hand during the actual renovation period -- I was just a fill-in and the bunker work was done by the mini-hoe operator with some very basic and simplistic ground work by Art on infrequent occasions).
All said, the course is in much better shape and being treated much better than it was for many years, but it should be so much more.
Reply #47
I have not been on the course in 10-12 years, so not familiar with any recent changes, but the "restoration" of the bunker shapes was too broad of a sweep and amorphous instead of really following what the ground was hinting at with the existing contours, which I believe to have been original and unchanged, except for the grass to have changed, grown over, or been benevolently denied attention for many of the previous 60 years. There was not enough (or any) attention given to what was on the ground and really analyzing what was there versus just looking at an old photograph (maybe fuzzy or at a small scale) and just simply going after it. Real attention should have been given to what was on the ground to reclaim original green surface and bunker intricacies.
Reply #48
Let's take the 6th green -- a great, fun hole with a really cool green. They "fixed" drainage in the back left fringe and off the green to keep water from running across the green -- by doing so they took away the back left flagstick location that used to be there by significantly altering the grades. There is a 6-7% slope on the back section of green that will be too radical if the green speed gets up at all, but with the added space that used to be there, the greens could run fast and still provide options and fun (for the record, I don't think the course's greens should ever run faster than 10 and if they were 9, firm, and rolling true, then you could pin many areas that are unavailable today -- that is basically a general statement/philosophy about green speed).
Reply #52
My point wasn't that there isn't a back left pin, but that they didn't recognize that there were considerable areas around the greens that were original to the design and they graded in those areas for various reasons, whether it was redirecting surface drainage or in the reconstruction of the bunkers. In the 6th's case, they left the green intact but graded the fringe and rough beyond it for other work, disregarding the fact that it was originally green surface. That back left pin is marginal for a flagstick location due to the slope, particularly when the speed gets up in mid-season. With a re-expanded and established green margin, there would be more opportunities to put the pin there, be "fair," and spread the wear around a bit.
Reply #55
Yes, there was much evidence in the ground -- you just had to take the time to notice it. And now, those areas have been altered, most probably by cutting the areas, not filling, in most cases. And, yes, the greens were much larger than now, as evidenced by pictures and ground research -- I think the most incredible of the lost opportunities in this regard is the 4th, which was HUGE.
Hills didn't touch the existing green surfaces, as they were mown at the time. Yes, bunkers were built or rebuilt in areas that were once green surface.
The original bunker design was attempted to be replicated, that was the intent. I don't think it was achieved effectively, but if you hear that they "restored" the great Alister MacKenzie's work enough times, people begin to believe it.
Yes, I think the course is better off now than before. BUT, it should be so much better.