News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Early Olympia Fields Review
« on: July 08, 2002, 03:20:02 PM »
Although I don't particularly like this CNN/SI writer's stuff and there's some narcissistic  commentary about his round there, I thought the discussion about the course and comparisons to Bethpage were interesting, such as this by Mark Mungeam:

"If you remember Bethpage, a lot of fairways were very straight, like bowling alleys," Mungeam said. "I think that's so unnatural looking. In reshaping the bunkers and fairways, one thing I really tried to maintain was the shape of the fairways and their contours. I think this course still looks much more natural than Bethpage."


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/gary_van_sickle/news/2002/07/08/underground/
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Bye

Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2002, 03:31:39 PM »
Gee, could Boston Brian be Brian Silva and Bandon Mike be Mike Keiser?

Maybe he's hiring them for the Sheep Ranch?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

spdb1

Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2002, 03:57:28 PM »
would make sense since Mungeam and Silva are partners.

Also, I thought the comment about the 3rd hole was particularly amusing in light of the fact that it is that hole which people will be buying posters of.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2002, 07:01:04 PM »
Though Sickle's "me, me, me" writing style makes for a tough read, he makes good points. Mungeam deserves credit for his first rate work and the fairway bunkers are genuinely in play, with the deep ones on holes 2, 9, and 11 being particularly appealing.

The Black and the North Course are of comparable quality, at least in my book. The North has a greater range of two shotters, its greens accept a greater variety of shots (the 2nd begs for a run-up for instance while the 11th green almost plays as a Redan as it sweeps toward its back left) and its greens possess very interesting interior contours (though I'm not sure who deserves the credit).

Conversely, Bethpage's two three shotters are in a different class and few courses can compete with The Black's huge,unique scale.

Still, Park's routing highlights the fine rolling property upon which The North Course is located and its finest holes (3, 13, and 14(!)) stand favorable comparison with the finest holes from 99.99% of the courses in the country.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

JS

Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2002, 09:48:13 PM »
Per Mr van Sickle...when did Chicago become the #1 golf town in the U.S.?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Brad Swanson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2002, 10:40:12 PM »
Sounds to me like van Sickle should change his name to van Chokele after his stellar finish.  And why should you knock (or slight) a course just because it doesn't have the near obnoxious scale of Bethpage Black?

Brad Swanson
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

rhobbs

Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2002, 09:18:10 AM »
I have heard that Keiser has purchased land in Scotland, so its possible that Silva & Co. could be pegged for that design.  I believe that Doak has the Sheep Ranch job all to himself.  

Silva could also be considered for the fourth public course at Bandon.  I believe that the gentleman that designed Kingsbarn is doing the third public course at Bandon.  I think that they are calling it Randolph Dunes.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2002, 11:17:49 AM »
shivas:

You make a great point.  Chicago doesn't get nearly it's due as to the quality of the golf courses.  Not just the top 5 or 6,
or even the top 10 or 20, but look down the list and there are fantastic courses all the way down to number 50!  

Where else can you go that offers 50 fantastic courses, both private and public, within an hour or two drive from downtown?

Nowhere else, but Chicago!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

rhobbs

Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2002, 11:34:43 AM »
I second that.  I live in Chicago and I never play here.  There is so little difference between courses.  I would much rather hop a flight out of O'Hare and see some great golf courses than sit in a golf cart for 6 hours at Medinah.  ShoreAcres and Chicago golf club are the exception.  But, nothing matches Shinney, National, Maidstone, Fisher Island, Bethpage, Winged Foot, Garden City, Lido, etc.........

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2002, 11:38:34 AM »
shivas:

That's my point, exactly.

I just had a customer ask me where he could take a client of his out to golf around New York City.  After mentioning Bethpage Black, I was stumped as to where an out-of-towner could get on, AND impress his client.

In Chicago, he said he could take him to Dubsdread, Kemper,
Glen Club, Harborside, etc. etc.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

rhobbs

Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2002, 11:44:42 AM »
Just because its easy to get on doesn't make it good.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2002, 11:49:41 AM »
rhobbs:

Of course, having friends at Shinnecock, National, Winged Foot, etc etc is nice, but not everyone has access to these courses.  

Where does a public guy play within an hour of the city (besides the Black)?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2002, 11:51:37 AM »
rhobbs and shivas:

This might make a great thread of its own.

Take the top 50 courses from New York and pair them off against the top 50 from Chicago.

I'll bet New York may win the top few or even the top 20, but I'm pretty sure that Chicago wins the "next 30."

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Mike_Cirba

Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2002, 11:54:58 AM »
Paul,

I think you'd be surprised.  

While I have NO experience with Chicago golf (I situation I hope to rectify next year), the depth of great courses in the greater NYC area is simply astounding.  Yes, many of them are private, but speaking purely architecturally, I wouldn't even imagine any area competing.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

rhobbs

Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2002, 11:55:57 AM »
What's a public golf course?  I am just kidding.  Chicago has some great courses that are open to the public.  I just have lucked out to get on some of the great ones and they jost don't match up.  

The worst things is the private courses like Shore Acres and Chicago GC have so few members that ever play their that it is just a waste.  Winged Foot and Shinney always seem to be jammed with players.

Besides every Chicago course is pretty much the same.  BORING!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2002, 11:56:36 AM »
Mike:

You said:
>While I have NO experience with Chicago golf...

Then you are in for a helluva surprise!  You need to get to
Chicago and find out what you've been missing!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Mike_Cirba

Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2002, 11:59:39 AM »
Paul,

Touche'

I agree that it's somewhere I clearly need to visit.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2002, 12:23:23 PM »
If R Hobbs is playing Lido then he really is the Natural or maybe he invaded the field of dreams.  I think Chicago is an outstanding golf location and probably has the best public golf of any major metropolitan area.  However, if we extend NY all the way out to the Hamptons, it is probably a little better.  But if we bring in the Kohler and Benton Harbor (Lost Dunes, the Dunesetc) into Chicago we get closer.  I'm surprised Philadelphia hasn't weighed in;there is plenty of great golf and amazing variety.
Mike Cirba; when you are ready to visit Chicago to play, give me a holler.  A few of us can give you a pretty good sampler.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Mike_Cirba

Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2002, 12:28:18 PM »
SL_Solow;

Thank you.  I will certainly look you up!

I think the Lido that R. Hobbs is referring to might be the public course by the same name that sits on adjacent land to the original.  It was built by RTJ Sr. in 1949, and although it's only a shadow of the original, it can be fun and tough on a windy day with several holes along the water.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

rhobbs

Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2002, 12:55:58 PM »
I'm sorry but Cantigny sucks.  I can't imagine anyone thinking Cantigny is even worth playing.  And, the Lido I was referring to was the course built next to the original track.  Same as with Shinney.  Some of the original holes (1892) are now used as a chipping and putting area.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2002, 01:01:11 PM »
If you think the public course next to Lido is better than Cantigny,(admittedly from my perspective only an above average test) then I question your judgment with respect to this entire thread.  By the way, have you played Olympia Fields North, particularly after the Mungeam revisions?  Do you consider it boring?  A poor test?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

rhobbs

Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2002, 01:04:21 PM »
It is bland.  Not an interesting hole on the entire course.  I just couldn't wait to get out of there.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

rhobbs

Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2002, 01:13:49 PM »

Pac Dunes, Bandon, Dunes Club, NGLA, Balty Upper, Maidstone, Pine Valley, Merion, Seminole....
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

rhobbs

Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2002, 02:01:27 PM »
The reason that I mention all of these great courses is simply this.  Life is too short.  I would rather try and play all the great courses of the world versus just hacking it around some boring course.  I know that is not the same opinion as everyone else.  But, I would rather save up my dollars and visit Bandon, then to play Cog Hill or Ruffled Feathers every weekend.  Besides.  I live in the city of Chicago and for me to get out to Cog Hill on the weekend takes a bit of time.  Plus the courses are always jammed.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Olympia Fields Review
« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2002, 02:32:28 PM »
rhobbs:

Could you identify yourself by your real name?

You mention that you live in Chicago.  What is your "home course?"

I agree that life is too short.  However, to keep it in perspective, I was fortunate enough a few years ago to play
a great classical course (top 100 from Golfweek) with an older gentleman who has played every Golf Digest and Golf Magazine top 100 course (ever!) as well as every course that has hosted a US Open, British Open, PGA, US Amateur, Ryder Cup, Walker Cup, etc. etc.  This gentleman has played probably every course you've heard of!  Anyways, his quote to me was that "there are no bad golf courses."  

Somehow, I think he knows.


-------

shivas:

That being said, I wish you hadn't included Seven Bridges on your list of good public golf in Chicago!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up