A step in the right direction at Medinah?...

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am kind of with Ryan on this one. If Medinah - the ultimate tree course - has been taking down too many just because that is trendy, isn't that just another misguided new direction for them.  (granted, in some cases, its agronomically required)

Now, I can see taking out the over planting on the formerly open areas along holes 5, and 9-11 to return it to nature and provide some variety.  I wouldn't denude the place because its currently trendy to take down trees elsewhere.  I would leave them up and accept the course for what it is.  As a tree fillled test, it still beats Oympic, the other Open course critiqued for its trees.  And, I still doubt its a lot narrower than some other traditional Open venues.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Funny you mentuion ratings -- at the time you cite Medinah No 3 being a top 10 course -- Cypress Point was much further down the list -- around that same time CP wasn't even among the nation's top 50 -- now it's a mainstay. Jeff, as someone who is especially perceptive, I would think you would know, that ratings / tastes have evolved -- in many smart ways I might add. Brawn is no longer the chief determinant. People opened their eyes to see other dimensions of golf design as being more important -- and brawn with trees hanging over fairways like spanish moss became much less so.

You still keep mentioning about the greens at Medinah No 3 but I have a vivid memory from the '75 period and from the subsequent times I have played the course (four in total) over a span of 35 years. I have never viewed the greens at the course as being especially noteworthy -- the challenge at the course was handling the turn points of several holes and in being able to hit the ball a good amount of ways off the tee.

Jeff, Medinah No 3 pales in comparison with the architectural rigor and green demands / shot values presented by the likes of Oakmont, Winged Foot / West and even Bethpage Black in my mind. I see Medinah No 3 and Baltusrol Lower in the same light. Both have benefited from having been located in major metro areas and with a membership desiring for such events of the type in question. No doubt it helps to have the logistics on-site to still be a major party for such events.

You ask me to cite key holes from Baltusrol Lower -- hello -- but I never equated the Lower as being a superb course worthy of the acclaim it gets. What criticism would you like to offer for the likes of Oakmont, Winged Foot West or Bethpage Black. Please knock yourself out. Have you ever heard of the WF/W's opening hole? Or how about the pear-shaped greens flanked so brilliantly by the bunker scheme of A.W. Tillinghast. Jeff, have you ever heard of WF/W's 10th hole? Or how about the dynamic and demanding closing hole? At BB you have the stellar par-5 4th -- the superb long par-4 5th, the mindblowing stairway to heaven par-4 15th and the riveting par-3 17th. At Oakmont you have a slew of stellar holes -- the short par-4 17th being among them. Have you heard about the long par-4 15th? Or how about the wonderful church pew bunkers that protect both the uphill par-4 3rd (a very underrated hole in American golf) and the long par-5 4th.

I salute your hometown pride but frankly Medinah has benefited from its general location in arguably the greatest sports town we have in the States. I don't see the architecture as being unique or worthy of noteworthy acclaim -- too bad but Chicago does have other even more special places -- love to see a US Open at BN but that's not likely going to happen. 

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

With all due respect -- I never understood the hoopla tied to Medinah No 3 to start with -- my first time playing the course was the version used for the '75 US Open. You write about its "greatness" -- forgive me -- but who, besides yourself, sees Medinah No 3 as a great course? A place that has needed so many changes to "improve" makes me wonder what the fuss was about with the course PRIOR to all the changes that have come down the pike over the years.

One other thing -- I'd like to get some semblance of what other courses you see in the same vein as Medinah No 3. If you can list a few it would be appreciated.

thanks ...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt, there is little point continuing because when Matt has spoken, he has spoken, until he has spoken again like a broken record. It appears that when you decide something is right (usually your opinion and no others) the discussion may as well be over.

But the facts are that from maybe 1949 on, experts, magazine panels, etc. ranked Medinah among the best.  I think you are being quite narrow minded to think that you and only you and people who think like you are smarter than generations past.  You say rating evolve, which could imply either improve or change. Personally, all I know is that in another 25 years, tastes in gca will have evolved again, and those people may think their views are infinitely superior to what us boobs in approximately 2010 thought.  Our opinions may be the beehive hairdos of the future.

So, get over yourself!   We all need to do it.  And, as it relates to Medinah, I actually do think its funny that many would say it fit a formula for "brawny difficulty" and the solution is to fit it into another formula for less trees, etc.  It IS a brawny muscular course, not that there is anything wrong with that.  It was that type of site.  It has great topo, great trees, great history and a bunch of brawny holes.  I am pretty sure that the current 12th, 13th and 16th would qualify as signature holes on par with say, WF 10 which is most famous for Hogan's remark implying the house behind is too close to play! I do like WF 9 and 18 tremendously but it has a few weaker holes on the back nine.

As to CP, I have heard more than a few players, to my surprise, really not like CP.  Whereas you and I love the scenery and setting and bunkers, those who play at the top level just find it not so appealing in terms of shots required.  I don't know if they are wrong or we are wrong or if no one is wrong.  No golf course can do everything well, and there is no one perfect rating system.  So, Medinah does what it does pretty darn well and should be proud of it, whether you see what the big deal is or not.

As to Chicago bias, lets not forget that there may be a strong dose of Philly bias around these boards, as well.  It has a great golf history but I doubt that there are fifty courses in Philly better than Medinah or the best Chicago or any other metro area has to offer. Granted, its really hard to judge, especially when most ratings want to cut off at 100 courses.

[Terry Lavin]

I would just urge everybody to look at the title of the thread.  It ends with a ?

Let's wait and see how the work turns out.  As I said, I'm optimistic.  And I can understand the pessimism of others.

[Mac Plumart]

Jeff...GREAT post!!!  I love the part about we all need to get over ourselves.  But aside from that excellent point...you make a lot of other good points.  

Another one that is great is when you say...


"No golf course can do everything well, and there is no one perfect rating system."  That is money!!  To each their own, right?!?

I am actually such a geek that I save posts on this site that I think are good to read and review from time to time.  In fact, I saved this one from Ryan Potts (a major contributor to this post) from awhile back...

"Not all courses have to be playable for all skill levels.

There are big golf courses that require big games and little golf courses that require little games.  I happen to prefer the former over the latter as it better suits my eye and my game....and in fact, I end up enjoying the course and the round that much more.  What is the fly in the ointment in many "reviews" on this site is that everyone in their subjective rankings expects a course to be elastic to their shortcomings as golfers.  "

Well, in my opinion, that's just not fair and not true.  Golf courses are built to be a lot of different things to a lot of different people."

I love his last sentence there.  Golf courses are built to be a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  No doubt.  And I think architects and developers owners know this and they build accordingly.  I played in Pinehurst a few weeks ago.  I looked forward to playing #2 and challening myself.  Now, I am not a good golfer...hitting 85 is a GREAT round for me...and Pinehurst beat me up...I shot 93 but I loved it.  It was all that I expected to be and I had no illusions I would hit 85 there.  However, my friend hated it.  It beat him up, but I think he thought it wouldn't.  It didn't suit his game it was too much for him.  Later that day we played Mid-Pines...I shot 87 and enjoyed the course, but it wasn't #2.  I liked my 93 at #2 better than my 87 at Mid-Pines...I wanted the challenge.  However, my friend loved Mid-Pines.  He scored better, it was easier on him, and that is what he wants.

So, what's the point?  I've never played Medinah #3, so this is all observation...but maybe it is set up for the player looking for a challenge and looking to be tested relentlessly.  If that is what it is designed to do, then players looking for that experience should play it.  If you want a nice enjoyable weekend round, it sounds like you will hate Medinah.  To each their own.

As a point of note, however, it is rated by all the major rating entities as one of the best courses in the world.  Golfweek ranks it the 62nd best classic course, Golf mag 36th best course in the States (62nd in the world), and Golf Digest ranks it the 20th best course in the states.  Going back to Pat Mucci's thread awhile back...given the criteria used it appears that it might a bit lower on the Golfweek list perhaps due to the natural/aesthtic/walk in the park criteria and perhaps scores a bit better for Golf Diges due to shots values and the legacy of regarding tough tests of golf as better courses.

Just some thoughts.

[SL_Solow]

Yet another Medinah thread.  I have played the course on and off since the 1970's (when I was very young).  I confess it has never been a real favorite of mine.  But it is undeniable that it is an exacting examination of shotmaking.  I have often said that I like to play the course a few times a year to test my shotmaking.  I learn a lot about the state of my game.  I do not think it is a course that I would enjoy every day nor do I believe that it is a course that would be satisfactory for all levels of player.  Ryan is correct, it is not a course for everyone.  I believe that the numerous changes are largely a result of the club's desire to remain relevant as a championship test in light of changing technology, at least those that came after the initial changes designed to get rid of the old 18 etc.  Most of the changes to the routing have been improvements in my opinion, although I must confess that the new seventeen in each of its iterations has left me cold.  Additionally some of the changes to greens, while a reflection of increased speeds, have been inartful to my way of thinking.  In particular I really mourn the loss of the old second green, particularly when comparedwith the new version. I will withhold judgment on the latest changes until I see them in final form.

So its really a matter of personal preference.  Medinah is a difficult golf course built on a nice site.  It is overtreed but should not be stripped, only thinned.  It will never be the model for variety, especially for the "regular" player.  But I agree with Jeff that it is similar to other difficult tests which are deemed great although I would suggest that its greens complexes are not as good as some of those mentioned e.g. Winged Foot.

Finally, with respect to changing ratings I agree that rankings may change with fashion.  But reasoned criticism of the type dating back to Darwin, Tillinghast et al and continued through today's critics present standards which can be applied over time regardless of momentary fads.  It is up to each of us to evaluate what is a fad and what constitutes enduring values.  I think they call that "taste."

[Link Walsh]

Are there any pictures out there of this new 15th hole? 

[Jud_T]

While not meeting the "fun and intersting for all golfer" criteria that many here hold in high regard, it makes sence to compare #3 specifically with other stern championship layouts.  In particular, I'd love to hear Matt and Ryan's comparison of BN and #3.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Love the retort -- when you have nothing else to counter -- you throw mudballs -- how convenient. The fact is Medinah No 3 benefited from the old style GD rating process. Brawn was the chief element in course greatness then (go back and read it before barking at me) -- Digest listed for time that most difficult courses in making its top 100 listing. Cypress Point did not have that and as a result wasn't even rated among the top 50 courses. Thankfully, the tastes of many people have evolved for the better since then. Let me also point out other brawny layouts were at one time rated top 100- by Digest -- such as The Concord / Monster and The International, to name just two. Jeff, let me break the news to you -- since you seem to have your hands over your ears but not over your mouth -- when confronted with a different take you don't accept the counterpoint. Way to go partner.

Jeff, just answer the question straightforward -- nuff of the tapdance and avoidance game - do you see Medinah No 3 as being in the same vein as a place like Cypress Point in terms of overall greatness? I see the fascination with brawn as a fad -- not as SL states so eloquently as an "enduring value." Are you claiming that Medinah No 3 possesses an "enduring value?"

You also elevate holes at Medinah No 3 to "all-star" status when I have never seen any reputable person equate any hole at Medinah No 3 being at the highest of high levels in the USA. WF/W is another league beyond Medinah No 3 -- the green complexes alone at the Mamaroneck layout are among the finest in the USA. You say there are "weaker holes on the back nine" -- please illuminate with some rationale to back up your claim on that front.

You say there are people who see CP as being less so as a golf course. No doubt that's true. There are also people who see McDonald's as cuisine food too. I'd have to know who such people are and what specifics they care to share.

You mentioned Phiily bias on this board -- that's nice to know but I don't live in the Philly area. In fact, I would dare say that on the private side Philly has the better argument than Chicago.

[Mac Plumart]

Matt W...

wouldn't Medinah's "enduring value" be its challenge and demands on shot making?

If it continues to be a challenge for the low handicappers to score well on...that should be its claim to fame and thing that keep players coming back, right?

[JR Potts]

You also elevate holes at Medinah No 3 to "all-star" status when I have never seen any reputable person equate any hole at Medinah No 3 being at the highest of high levels in the USA.

I don't really feel the need to directly list what courses I deem worth of comparison to Medinah - what would it accomplish with you.  Your billegerance too often trumps your knowledge and message - which is a shame - as I think you have a lot to offer...but here, you've lost yourt bearings.

I have no qualms or even retort to what Shelly, Terry, etc. have stated about their personal preference.  It is what it is.  But for one to state that not one hole at Medinah is an all-star is just preposterous.  The current 12th and 16th are about as good of par fours as anyone will play....especially with a new back tee on 16th that doesn't dog-leg too quickly due to tehcnological advances.  I've had probably 100 people out at Medinah that just gaze at the 13th hole from the Championship tees in awe.  

While it may not be for all....it certainly doens't make it pederstrian.

And comparing BN to #3....BN is a penal penal brawny golf course where doubles and triples just happen bacause of one bad shot.  Medinah is just brawny....but you can always savlvage boegy with a smart shot....but you can make 8 of them in a row in a nanosecond.  I seem to make more birdies at Butler as there are some holes to attack....but I also make numerouis doubles, etc.

I think Medinah is a lot more out in front of your than Butler....but I find them both to be great.

And I'll just end by saying that I don't play a lot of golf with mediocre players so I can't speak for their perspective - but I can say that of all my college teammates and friends who are good golfers, if you had to ask them for their top 10, Medinah would be in each of theirs.  Maybe none of the them have taste or knowledge (doubtful) or maybe, like I said, it takes a certain skill level to really apprecaite some courses a la Medinah...I'm not sure.  I'm not a world traveler, a golf course architect and I don't make my living playing the game, I just know what I know and know what I like.....and I really like Medinah and I like BN.

[PThomas]

I played Medinah for the first time a few years ago....after all of the "bad things" I read about it, my hopes weren't too high...

but i was pleasantly surprised...the course is demanding, yes, but that's ok..a lot of good golf holes out there......the one thing i found disappointing was the flatness of the greens, which i believe has been changed by the latest work

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Those I know, Matt,  who don't particularly like CP are tour pros,, Matt,  including a Ryder Cup captain, , Matt, fomer tv announcer, etc.  While they may, Matt,  have a different perspective from yours and mine, Matt, I think it needs to be, Matt,  respected. In essence, Matt, they judge the playing qualities, Matt, of the architecture, Matt, and , Matt, don't give a whit about the scenery, Matt. Among them, Matt,  its not such an uncommon opinion Matt,  although I think you, Matt,  and I , Matt, would be honored to play CP every day, Matt.

To be fair, Matt, I know where you Matt, are coming from on some of the critiques, Matt, and I always thought Medinah was, Matt, too high in the top 10, but seems about right, Matt,  from 30-60 or so, with maybe 60, Matt,  being about right, IMHO, Matt. But , Matt, top 100 is pretty good anywhere you sit , Matt, in it.

And , Matt, that is my point exactly, Matt,  since you, Matt, simply cover your ears, too, Matt.

And, Matt, I think most everything is a fad, Matt,  in any sort of design, Matt, or fashion, Matt,  or tast, Matt.  I think anyone, Matt,  who thinks they have the final answer, Matt,  or holy grail in gca thinkin, Matt, g, among other things, Matt,  is very, very shortsighted, Matt.  So, Matt, while I understand your point, Matt, Matt, , I don't care for both the presentation, Matt,  nor the presumption, Matt,  that your writing style implies.

In fatc, Matt, your writing style is so obtuse and poor, Matt, its hard to believe, Matt, that even a small rag like your New Jersey golf mag lets you soil its pages. But, Matt, to each his own, Matt, and I can live peacefully, Matt, knowing we have slightly different, Matt, opinions, Matt, of Medinah.

Its a funny thing, Matt, and worthy of discussion, Matt, perhaps on a different, non polarizing thread, Matt, but if a course is considered top 100 and has some flaws, Matt, to what degree can it change, Matt, and to what degree, Matt, should it retain its heritage, even the parts of it , Matt, that aren't the best.  I mean, Matt, with all the new courses coming on line, it stands to reason, Matt, that ANY course would think it had to improve, Matt, or risk a drop in the rankings, Matt, assuming those rankings, Matt, were something that is imporant to them, Matt.

But, Matt, that is a topic, Matt, for another day, Matt, and for now we just have to accept that Matt ratings Trump all the combined wisdom of the last 40 years or so, Matt. Matt, have a good evening, Matt.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Good morning, and many apologies for going off on you last night.  As Ryan noted last night, I have always thought that you put a lot of effort into your course ratings and opinions, and they are worthwhile for that reason, even when I happen to disagree.  But, like Ryan, I sometimes think it won't matter as your style is sometimes to repeat your opinion in a seeming effort to beat us all into submission and agree with your opinion, which I don't always want to do.

In response to your "Nobody says M3 has world class holes" comment, I did get up early and look in Golf Magazines "500 Greatest Golf Holes" and Medinah does have an entry - the 2nd Hole (not my pick and since been changed by Rees)  It seemed the most logical place to see where individual holes ranked, and I am 1 for 1 in finding confirmation that some great holes exist at Medinah.  For that matter, while searching through the bookshelf, I saw a few Beatles books, and wondered if the "better than the sum of its parts" argument could also apply.

You have repeatedly said that M3 benefits from the old GD system, but ignored that the other current magazines have the course in the mid range of the Top 100 list as well.  As you are a former GD panelist, I can understand you have some problems with their methods, and I can understand if anyone prefers the slightly different criteria and results of the GW or Golf lists.  But, all three still list M3 as a top course, even as Brad Klein has some misgivings as the head honch of the GW list. That seems to negate your arguments against the former brawny GD criteria and was the basis of my points that your broad brush assessments were personal opinion heavy and facts light.

If we want to find middle ground and say (as I already have) that Medinah isn't an elite top 10 or 25 course, I am more than fine with that.  Our opinions may be closer than an outsider would think reading this thread.  That said, anywhere in the top 100 (even classic courses only list of GW) is still  pretty darn good, and about right for Medinah, IMHO.

BTW, as I woke up, I was also thinking of the 9th hole, which is now the last of the snap doglegs to correct and wondered why that hasn't been done yet?  I also recall playing M3 a few years ago, and having it explained to me that PJ Boatwright required that M3 plant a few trees on the 5th hole to tighten it up (just to cross polinate this thread with another.....)  They planted some and according to Tim Cronin, PJ wanted them back out, but the members refused.  Now that the trees have grown, they are causing some line of play problems on a straight hole! I think there was perhaps removal of the inner most trees, or at least discussion of it.

Lastly, I read Sprit of Medinah again last night, and it is an excellent club history by GCA.com member Tim Cronin.  If you have any interst in Medinah or club histories at all, it is a worthwhile purchase.

[Brad Klein]

Jeff, don't overlook that the Byzantine clubhouse alone qualifies Medinah for top-25 in anyone's book, including my own. I could walk around that lobby for hours. Have, in fact.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brad,

Its a good point.  As I have related here before, my neighbors and best friends were members, and I went swimming and sledding etc. there many times before playing my first round of golf on Nos 1, 2 and 3 one day (at age 12)

I was in love with golf and the whole atmosphere of the place before I ever teed off.  Which is what makes me think that the entirety of the place may be stronger than any mathmatical rating or sringent gca analysis.  Its funny, but all of us say "we know it when we see it" when we like a course, but seem to use mathmatical rating systems and individual hole analysis more when we don't like it.

And, I can understand others who have had similar experiences at WF, Baltusrol or any of the old line country clubs.  Atmosphere does count for something.  And in reality, the course is still as similar to other old clubs as it is different.  They are all tough, tree lined courses.  Medinah has some great topo too.

[JR Potts]

And I too want to apologize for my terrible grammar.  For some reason, when using my home computer and typing on this site, I can't scroll down and see what I'm typing....so I have to type blind....and it shows.

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

I'd like to get a sense of what courses you see in the same league with Medinah No 3. Getting a point of reference through a comparison listing would help me get a better understanding of our points of emphasis when top tier layouts are discussed.

Too bad you don't "feel the need" -- if you're hesitant to handle such a simple request so be it. Wonderful move to the gutter with the trash tralking -- how bout you offer a good bit more than the same derision you claim is the hallmark of others?

In my times playing at No 3 I didn't see any holes worthy of national acclaim in my mind. You see it differently. Again so be it. By the way I didn't use the word "pedestrian" in regards to the holes at No 3 -- allow me the opportunity to place my own words in my mouth. Thanks.  

[JR Potts]

Matt - I've posted my Top 25....numerous times I believe.

I am heading to your home state in 9 days to take on Merion, Galloway National, Hidden Creek and Pine Valley....so I'm sure it will change.

Ironically enough, my #1, Shoreacres, is about as Anti-Medinah as any of the others.  But I don't play Shoreacres to test my game or give me a golfing challenge.  Like I said, different courses are meant to be different things.   And, I would play Shoreacres any day over Chicago Golf.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Number 12 at Medinah is probably the one that has had the least cghnages made to it over the yeras...and remains my favourite...still one of the greatest holes anywhere!!!

[JR Potts]

There have been no changes on 12 for as long as I've seen.  The only "change" coming up in 2010 is the fairway has been extended along the right side up to the back side of the green and on the slope to the right of the green a la 1975.

Now if they would only cut down the willow tree at about 100 yards, it would be a perfect hole.

[PThomas]

Now if they would only cut down the willow tree at about 100 yards, it would be a perfect hole.

there must be some true  story out there somewhere- yes? - of a disgruntled member taking out a tree by himself in the middle of the nite....

[Matthew Petersen]

Now if they would only cut down the willow tree at about 100 yards, it would be a perfect hole.

there must be some true  story out there somewhere- yes? - of a disgruntled member taking out a tree by himself in the middle of the nite....

The question is how many times has this happened but there are no stories of it because none of the other members noticed the missing tree....

[Jeff_Brauer]

The 12th was changed in 1950  by Langford and greenskeeper Eddie Dearie, adding the pond and making it the only bunkerless hole on the course.  I think the least changed holes are 9 and 11.

Once again, we are all entitled to our opinions and of course, the differences are what make this place exciting.  Like Ryan, I don't feel compelled to offer my M3 equivalents inasmuch as the USGA, PGA and Ryder Cup contnue to pick the course for major tournaments.  While I agree that it benefits from its location, so do nearly any other course that gets an important venue.  I don't think those important tournaments would play a dog track just because of location.  I know there are many out of the top 100 courses (but just barely) that do,  but generally not.