News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Steve Salmen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« on: May 08, 2009, 05:34:38 PM »


In 2005 I volunteered for the Walker Cup and walked the grounds of the Chicago Golf Club.  The first thing I noticed was how open the course was.  As I walked the course, I appreciated that the course did not need trees as a defense.  In fact, trees really come into play on two holes, numbers fifteen and sixteen.  From the clubhouse lawn, the entire course is laid out in front of you.  It is very much like Muirfield in this regard.

The second, and most important to me architecturally were the greens and green complexes.  The greens are all large, undulating, well bunkered, and many are elevated from the fairway.  Several greens are square like, cut at ninety degree angles.  I’m not qualified to say whether this is a strong architectural feature or not, but it sure looks cool.

After his first round at Muirfield, Tiger was a little flustered because he missed several putts.  He said the greens were not overly fast (maybe 8.5), but holes were cut where it was really difficult to read what the ball was going to do as it got to the hole.  I read this to mean that there were many subtle breaks that were not easily visible.  The same thing happened to me several times  at Chicago,  where the ball did not move where I expected it would.  Another unique feature at Chicago is how many greens have sections where they fall off, and you are not aware of this until it is too late.

The holes that fooled me the worst were  #8 and #18.  The eighth green slopes toward the back, especially the further back the hole location.   The eighteenth green appears to slope from back to front.  From pin high putting from the left side of the green, my ball did not move right one iota. 

Six holes on the card add two hundred seventy five yards to the total yardage.  I think the three holes where this makes the greatest difference are numbers 8, 12, and 17.  These three make marginally difficult two shotters into ones that require two “glorious golf shots”, in the words of Ben Wright. 

Hole #1  450 yards

An interesting feature of Chicago is the hardest three holes are numbers 1,2, and 3.  The first is a straight hole.  The fairway dips down then rises to a well bunkered green.  Though it is not the Redan hole, were it a one shotter it would certainly qualify.  The green is open on the right side.  Even a long approach is difficult to run up the open slot due to the severity of the uphill slope.







Hole #2  440 Yards

This is similar to the Road Hole.  It’s a long two shotter.  The tee shot is slightly downhill, the second slightly uphill.  The fairway is pinched inward around 270 yards off the tee by a cross bunker on the left hand side.  The right portion of the green has a very severe false front, and the Road Bunker must be carried on the left to the back left pin placement.  The hole is similar to #14 at Piping Rock.


Notice the large false front.






Hole #3  219 Yards

This is Chicago’s Biarritz Hole.  Unlike #6 at Shoreacres or #9 at Yale, there is no putting green on the short side of the dip.  Though the green is wide and deep, one does not want to be in any bunker left, right or long; the shot is severely uphill.  The green slopes pretty well from back to front.





Hole #4  536 Yards

This is a Cape type hole doglegging slightly left.  Ideally you want to hit a power draw off the cross bunker about 280 yards out.  I really like this hole because if you go for it in two shots and do not wind up on the green, you’ll wish you had laid up between 90 and 110 yards out.  It has a similar shape and yardage as #18 at Shoreacres but much more penal around the green.  The green is elevated with a large false front and is surrounded by bunkers nearly three hundred degrees.  It cannot be stated strongly enough to avoid the greenside bunkers.  They are extremely deep.







Hole #5  320 Yards

Short Par 4 without too much trouble.  The long hitter should be aware of the little bunker guarding the left portion of the green.  This green is fairly large for a short approach but can play tricky in a stiff wind.  It’s similar to the short fifth at Piping Rock.







Hole #6  395  Yards

Relatively straightforward tee shot.  The devil is in the approach.  The green is elevated with another large false front.  The further back the flag, the more difficult the second because the green is pinched inward, halfway back by a dastardly bunker on the left.  The green is two tiered.





Hole #7  207 Yards

Perhaps I’m a rarity on this site, but I’m not a huge fan of the Redan Hole.  I’ve played North Berwick at least a half dozen times and just don’t appreciate the architectural significance of #15.  If there is any wind, I think the hole becomes hit and hope the ball ends up no worse than long and left.

Seven at Chicago is a very good hole.  The front half of the right side of the green is a false front.  The lip above the left greenside bunker is very tall and makes it difficult to tell how much green is on the other side.  This left side is where the hole is usually cut.  However, there is a good fifty or sixty feet from front to back.  A well struck shot will easily hold any part of the green above the false front.  As with many holes, any shot that misses the green will result in a severely uphill pitch.









Hole #8  413 Yards

The drive is semi blind over a cross bunker, down a gentle slope to a fairway that tapers inward.  I’m reminded of the tee shot of #7 at Piping Rock.  The second is interesting for a Macdonald: deep bunkers lie short and right of the green.  The putting surface is angled like #12 at August, an oval shape that runs from front left to back right.  The ideal approach is from the left side.





Hole #9  403 Yards

Drive straightaway over a cross bunker.  The second shot is over water that should not come into play, as it lies forty yards short of the green.





Hole #10  139 Yards

This is a gorgeous one shotter over the water.  The green is almost completely surrounded by two bunkers, similar to #5 at Yale and the original #17 at Piping Rock.  The two tiered green is very undulating.



Hole #11  410 Yards

From the tee this appears to be a straightforward two shotter.  In reality it’s anything but.  The hole is a mild dogleg left.  The longer the drive, the more narrow the landing area.  Deep rough on both sides awaits missed drives.  The approach is uphill to a green that runs front right to back left, very Redan like.  Again, there is a strong false front that must be negotiated.





Hole #12  414 Yards

The drive is semi blind and the left side should be favored.  If one misses right, there is a fairway bunker and deep rough.  The resulting shot will have to clear a deep greenside bunker.  From the left side, the bunker is not really in play.  However, The great feature of this hole is the two tiered punchbowl green.  The back right part of the green is lower than the short left.  The player has a good chance of one putting if on the correct level and a very difficult two putt from the wrong one. 





Hole #13  149 Yards

A beauty and a devil simultaneously.  The green is very well bunkered but the player will not be punished for coming up a little short.  The green runs from front left to back right.  It rises in the front and falls off to the back.  Again, two putts are difficult if not on the correct side of the spine.



Hole #14  351 Yards

This is a wonderful short two shotter.  The drive must carry a large diagonal cross bunker to a fairly generous fairway.  The best approach is from the right, but if one misses right a bunker or deep rough will be quite punishing.  A short iron should find the green.  If not, a horseshoe shaped bunker will grab poor approaches.  The strong player must be aware of not spinning his wedge into the bunker.  The approach shot is similar to the second at Yale, however there is no drop off on the left side.



Hole #15  393 Yards

This hole is pretty straight.  A deep bunker lies just left of the fairway about two hundred forty yards out.  On the right side there are actually trees that come into play.  The approach is to a square shaped green guarded by bunkers in all directions but short.



Hole #16  525 Yards

Even though there are trees that come into play left and right, it is a phenomenal driving hole due to the bunkering.  A large cross bunker cuts off the left half of the fairway.  Then there is the cross bunker on the right another forty paces forward.  After driving, the second shot should favor the left side, as trees line the right.  There is a false front of the green and a spine in the middle, dividing the left and right sides.





Hole #17  382 Yards

This is a straight, slightly uphill hole guarded by a cross bunker on the right about two hundred forty yards off the tee.  The approach must clear two more cross bunkers to a large square green that slopes severely from back to front.  There is a tee 83 paces behind the regular.  From there, the hole reminds me of #10 at Muirfield due to the length, width of fairway, and bunkering.





Hole #18  425 Yards

The course ends with a semi blind tee shot over a set of bunkers on the right side.  The fairway slopes downward and to the left, so a low draw is ideal.  The main trouble greenside is a bunker right and a bunker just short and left.  The green is a generous sized square with many subtle breaks.





Conclusion and other observations

This is one of the few courses I’ve ever played that I truly did not care what my score was.  I was relaxed and enjoyed every step.  The golf course is not that difficult until you start believing the golf course is not that difficult.  Each shot must be given proper concentration and respect.  When the wind is up, the course is very difficult for players of all skill levels.

An interesting feature is how many bunkers sit behind greens.  I counted twelve holes that had back greenside bunkers.  I have to assume they don’t see too much action unless the flag is cut back and the hole plays downwind.

If you recall the bunker Ernie Els hit into on #18 at Muirfield, there are several of these at Chicago.  They tend to be long and narrow, leaving awkward stances and shots must carry steep slopes.

If I could do this over, I would have taken fewer pictures of tee shots and approaches and paid more attention to the green complexes with better analysis.



K. Krahenbuhl

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2009, 05:49:11 PM »
Awesome post Steve!  Thanks!!!

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2009, 07:34:16 PM »
Great tour, Steve.  Sounds like you got to play as well as walk the course during the Walker Cup.

My wife and I were there for the Walker Cup too and absolutely loved the course.  It is a great match play course and the flat bellies had some terrific matches.  I will never forget the finish, when the GBI lads made putts to halve or win half a dozen matches on #18 Sunday afternoon.

#5 was really fun to watch.  The long Americans -- Anthony Kim, John Holmes, others -- tried to drive the green and wound up in that gnarly rough around the green and worked for pars.    The UK guys laid up and made birdies with their wedges.  It was fun to watch.  The Kim-Gary Wolstenholme singles match Sunday morning was the best match I've ever seen.  Wolstenholme won 1 up despite being outdriven by 60-80 yards all day!  Great course management.

Carl Nichols

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2009, 07:39:35 PM »
Thanks for the great post, Steve.  Has the club historically resisted adding trees, or did it undergo a removal project at some point? 

J_ Crisham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2009, 09:21:18 PM »
Steve,  I was trying to guess when these pictures were taken-I assumed late March or April? The last time  I played CGC was last Fall and the fescue had been burned/mowed off. The fescue really frames the holes nicely. I have a nice photo collection of other visits but I'm not quite sure how to load from my camera to the site.  :(  My personal favorite holes are 1, 2,4,6,9,10,12,13,14,17. Great green complexes and bunkering. Not an easy course if the wind is up and the fairways are firm. As far as tree removal is concerned ,I recall being told that a massive Oak on the left side of 11 required several meetings prior to removal. It was also explained by my host that Tom Doak is the archie who is consulted. Bill, I too went to the Walker Cup in 05 and had a memorable weekend-amazing what the competitors have accomplished on the tours. Great track that is an American Treasure.     Jack

Steve Salmen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2009, 09:45:02 PM »
Kyle,  Thank you for the kind words.
Bill, I followed the Kim Wolstenholm match for seven holes.  You are correct about the difference in driving distance.  It was unbelievable. I paced off 67 and 70 yards respectively on holes 1 and 2.  Wolstenholme hit fairway wood into 4 of the first 7 greens in regulation.
Carl,  I think they removed some trees before the Walker Cup but I'm not sure.  I will ask.  Mr. Doak should know the answer.
Jack, I played the course April 23 of this year.  I have played it a few times in the past but without camera.  I agree with all your favorite holes.  It's a wonderful test of the short game if you're just a little off.  You can also wind up with diabolical putts if you're not careful.

Steve

Anthony Gray

Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2010, 12:41:44 PM »


  Bump on a cold day.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2010, 12:47:10 PM »
Bill,

I witnessed Holmes drive long left on #5 as well...of course I also watched him hit that 3 wood stiff on #4  :o
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Jay Flemma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2010, 03:03:16 PM »
Thanks for the pics.  It looks really interesting.  Have you also played Shoreacres?
Mackenzie, MacRayBanks, Maxwell, Doak, Dye, Strantz. @JayGolfUSA, GNN Radio Host of Jay's Plays www.cybergolf.com/writerscorner

Mark McKeever

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2010, 11:09:39 AM »
Great post Steve!  Thanks for sharing the pictures!

Mark
Best MGA showers - Bayonne

"Dude, he's a total d***"

Kevin Pallier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2010, 10:15:21 PM »
Steve

My that terrain looks flat ?

Having seen Macdonalds "template" holes at NGLA - I'd love to now see first hand those at Chicago as well.

Thanks for sharing same

Steve Salmen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2010, 02:36:45 AM »
For the Chicago area, the terrain is not flat.  The course has a lot of undulation.  It would appear that a lot of approach shots are fairly level, but there are a lot of greens with false fronts that must either be flown or bounced up.

I have played Shoreacres but not for a few years.  The obvious difference between the two is the trees that come into play.  There are far more at Shoreacres.  That being said, both courses have huge, undulating green complexes and neither are long but todays standards.

I have played neither course enough to form strong opinions.  They are fun golf courses to play.

Thanks Anthony, Mark, Jay, and Kevin.

Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2010, 08:22:47 AM »
Chicago Golf is one of my all time favourites and I'm fortune for a Brit to have plated it twice and hopefully more to come. The course has some wonderful greens including the subtle 3rd, terrifying 6th & 9th and the massive Redan green. Sadly photos do not do this classic justice.
Cave Nil Vino

J_ Crisham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2010, 09:07:56 AM »
For the Chicago area, the terrain is not flat.  The course has a lot of undulation.  It would appear that a lot of approach shots are fairly level, but there are a lot of greens with false fronts that must either be flown or bounced up.

I have played Shoreacres but not for a few years.  The obvious difference between the two is the trees that come into play.  There are far more at Shoreacres.  That being said, both courses have huge, undulating green complexes and neither are long but todays standards.

I have played neither course enough to form strong opinions.  They are fun golf courses to play.

Thanks Anthony, Mark, Jay, and Kevin.
What I would add to Steve's comments is that CGC and Shoreacres are completely different courses. CGC is still a very big tough course.  Also the short shots are quite complex should you miss a green. Par is still a very good number here. The greens are flawless,severe , and quite quick. Shoreacres is a course where most players could hit hybrids or 3 woods off every hole . You can't do that at CGC. The main feature at SA is the ever present ravines that traverse the course-they must be avoided. The redan hole at SA is not in the same class as the one at CGC. The drop shot hole at SA is probably the best par 3 on the course. As far as the ambience-a postround drink at the patio at SA is as good as it gets in Chicago. Lakeshore may be the only club with a view as pretty in Chicago.
                                                                                                                         Jack

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2010, 10:12:32 AM »
Other than the first four holes, which leave a distinct impression of difficulty, I have to say I disagree with the characterization of Chicago Golf as long and difficult.  Of course, I've probably played half my rounds there with Bill Shean, who makes golf look ridiculously easy.  Maybe the couple of tees we have added have really made a difference!

The main trees we took out were some trees that had been planted as a backstop to greens, on holes like #2 and #15.  Now those greens seem to float in the air, and they are that much more scary to approach.

The tree (or trees) on the left side of #11 were quite controversial.  They prevented you from cutting the dogleg, and if you were a short hitter, they blocked the approach from the left half of the fairway.  Still, they made the hole MORE DIFFICULT, and there were a lot of members who argued against cutting them down for that reason.

Those trees indirectly got me the job of consultant at Chicago Golf.  Ben Crenshaw has been a member there for 20 years, and in the early days they would ask him architectural questions, and his usual advice was just to leave things alone.  But they kept nagging him about those trees on 11, and he did not like to come to the club and be asked about that stuff, instead of just going out to play.  So he endorsed me as the consultant, to escape the responsibility!

Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2010, 10:43:57 AM »
Tom - I agree with you re the length, yes 1, 2 & 3 require a long approach and 17 must off the back tee but the rest of the course presents a premium on accuracy and being in the right place to hit at the pins. Birdies are to be had Ari Techner scoring 4 I recall in the first 11 holes in our CGC/RCP match last summer, yet it is easy to see shots slip away if you cannot keep a tight ball.

A visit to CGC is one of golf's real treats, especially when borrowing Mr crenshaw's locker for the day!
Cave Nil Vino

J_ Crisham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2010, 10:51:45 AM »
Tom,    Nice story regarding your relationship with CGC. I would agree that watching Bill Shean play is something special to see. My characterization of CGC as being a longer ,bigger course is as it compares to SA. The first 4 holes at CGC are a pretty tough start maybe as tough a start as we have in the area. The holes where I think you need to hit driver if you hit it in the 250yd range are 1,2, 4, sometimes 8 and 9 depending on a wind from the North. 12, 16, 17 for sure if playing the far back tee(450 yds) , and 18. I can't think of a hole at SA that forces you to hit  a driver. I would also agree that CGC for a high level amateur/tour player would be a short course but for the other 99% of us it is a very fine test at it's current length.                          Jack

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Chicago Golf Club Photo Tour
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2010, 12:58:24 PM »
One thing that struck me the last time I played is that, though the greens are huge, a lot of them play much smaller because of the false fronts and plateaus. Think of 4.  The target is generally actually pretty tiny.  Also, now I'm thinking that the course is more aerial than I first thought in a lot of places because of, among other things, perched up greens.
That was one hellacious beaver.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back