Cog Hill #4-Dubsdread

[JWinick]

The course wasn't that good before the renovation and it is worse since the renovation.   Played there 3 weeks ago and wasn't impressed at all.   Every single green site is surrounded by bunkers.   How boring....   And the conditioning is terrible for $150/round.   

A real embarassment for Chicago golf.   There are multiple public courses better than Cog Hill (Harborside, Glen, Blackhawk, etc.) let alone dozens of privates.   Why do we insist on keep building this mediocrity up?   And, it sits on a great piece of property!

[Paul OConnor]

"The superintendent is a nice man,.."

Maybe he should be more of a prick. 

[Sven Nilsen]

There are multiple public courses better than Cog Hill (Harborside, Glen, Blackhawk, etc.) let alone dozens of privates.   

A couple of questions:

1.  Where is Blackhawk?  If you mean Thunderhawk, it may be a fun course for a duffer like me, but the pros would eat if for lunch. 

2.  Are you serious with the Harborside > Cog comment?  That is ludicrous.

The Glen Club hosted a Nationwide Event for a while, its probably the only other public option around Chicago that could even consider hosting a PGA Event.

[Mark Smolens]

Not only did the Glen Club host a Nationwide Tour event, but those guys absolutely tore it apart. You think Dubs plays easy for these guys? I watched a guy, not even someone way up the money list who ended up getting his card, just a guy (so anonymous I can't even recall his name) putt like a jerk and shoot 63 at the Glen. Of course everybody's probably putting like a jerk at Dubs if the greens are in bad shape. Too bad. The Jemseks have done a lot for us public course golfers. . .

[Adam Clayman]

Mark, IMO, You can disagree with me all you want. Wasting 5 million is pretty sad. Not to mention the loss of revenue, and for what? A tougher course? Tough, being arguable since Tiger's 62. Giving the pros clearer more finite areas to play to, makes it easier for them. It plays right into their wheelhouse. All they needed to do to re-toughen Dubbs was to put back that soft silica sand from Green Lake Wisconsin, Joe was so proud of.

As has been stated above, making it tougher for the few public types, that are willing to shell out a days wages to play there, and have their head handed to them, is the bad business model. I feel this way after having known Joe and how proud he was of Dubbs and what a smart conscientious business man he was. Back in the day $54 was steep, but it was worth it. Joe used to joke 'The only way to break 100 at Dubbs was at the Bar".

The information available about golf course architecture has changed so much over the last 12-15 years. Frank's decision to hire the open doctor, was a desperate attempt to impress the USGA. He should've been on top of the changing trends in architecture, showed some insight and made a better decision for his families business, than the one he did. That's my opinion, not spending his money.

[Mike H]

When watching on TV today I noticed a lot of burnt out or dead spots on the greens and in the rough around the greens and bunkers.  Its a shame how the heat has damaged some of these courses. 

[Jim Colton]

Mike,
 
  Are you still planning on playing Dubs later this month?

  Jim

[PThomas]

Tiger said today "Guys arent going low at this place because the greens arent good enough to go low"..ouch

[Bill Seitz]

Sven:

Cog Hill's late-summer/early fall rate is $155; that's a pretty steep price, likely to draw only serious golfers. You really think the crowd that seeks out #4 doesn't know how to repair a ball mark?

I used to think the same thing, but I'm shocked at how many huge, obvious ball marks I see every time I play there.  Even worse, they're from all directions, so there's some real chops that play there.  And beyond being poor golfers, they display poor etiquette.  

As for the greens in general, I think the weather, combined with the lack of maturity is the real culprit.  If we had this weather after four or five years of growth, they would have had ample opportunity to get them in shape for the tournament.  But those greens are still young, and this has been a rough summer.  Maybe I'm wrong and they'll still have this problem in a few years, but they look, feel, and play like they just haven't developed a great root system yet.

Re: the comments about the Glen Club, I think it's the most overrated course in Chicago.  I'm always surprised when I see it so high on ratings lists for the state.  It's as if people just rank courses based on the greens fee.  Dubs is expensive, but you can make an argument that it's worth it occasionally (which is why I still play it four or five times per year).  I paid the spring rate for the Glen Club once, and I feel like I overpaid.  If I never go back, I won't be disappointed. 

Thunderhawk is fun to play, but way too goofy for professionals.  Just think of how easy 7, 8, 11, and 13 would be for those guys. 

[PCCraig]

Not only did the Glen Club host a Nationwide Tour event, but those guys absolutely tore it apart. You think Dubs plays easy for these guys? I watched a guy, not even someone way up the money list who ended up getting his card, just a guy (so anonymous I can't even recall his name) putt like a jerk and shoot 63 at the Glen. Of course everybody's probably putting like a jerk at Dubs if the greens are in bad shape. Too bad. The Jemseks have done a lot for us public course golfers. . .

Mark:

In 2006 the Glen Club grew the first cut of rough up to a thick 4" (probably close to what it is at Cog Hill right now) and had the course playing VERY F&F. I know they didn't change the mowing lines at all, they just grew out the rough that sits between the wide fairways and the high "fescue" rough. I wouldn't say they tore it apart with a winning score of -5:

http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/nationwide/leaderboard/2006/270

You might even recognize a few of the names who made the cut

Jason Dufner (winner) -5
Matt Kuchar +7 (I actually watched him the Sunday of this tournament...he's come a long way in 4 years!)
Michael Sim +1
Cameron Beckman -2
Jeff Quinney E
Boo Weekley +2
Rickey Barnes +9
Notah Begay +13
Mike Small +5

Granted the next year they shaved the rough and the winner shot -17, but it shows that with a little rough and some firm conditions you can turn the Glen into a decent professional tour stop. (Not saying it's ever going to happen, just that it's possible).

[PCCraig]

When watching on TV today I noticed a lot of burnt out or dead spots on the greens and in the rough around the greens and bunkers.  Its a shame how the heat has damaged some of these courses. 

I watched about an hour of coverage last night off and on, and in HD I didn't think the course looked that bad. But I suppose in person it could look a little rough compared to some of the other places they've been recently.

[PCCraig]

Tiger said today "Guys arent going low at this place because the greens arent good enough to go low"..ouch

 

[PThomas]

Geoff Shackelford has an item on the greens this morning...Tim CLark said it looked like they staged a shotput contest on the greens....Phil not thrilled about the course either

[Paul OConnor]

Pat,
No way the rough at Cog is 4" right now.  There are some spots in the lower areas on 3 and 7 where it gets heavy, but for most of the course it's 2 1/2-3"

I've been at the Pro-Am in years past when regular country club 10 handicaps could barely advance the ball out of the rough.  The course today is pretty tame.  

Tiger is dead on.  If the greens were worth a shit there would be 10 guys at 65.

[PCCraig]

Sven:

Cog Hill's late-summer/early fall rate is $155; that's a pretty steep price, likely to draw only serious golfers. You really think the crowd that seeks out #4 doesn't know how to repair a ball mark?

Re: the comments about the Glen Club, I think it's the most overrated course in Chicago.  I'm always surprised when I see it so high on ratings lists for the state.  It's as if people just rank courses based on the greens fee.  Dubs is expensive, but you can make an argument that it's worth it occasionally (which is why I still play it four or five times per year).  I paid the spring rate for the Glen Club once, and I feel like I overpaid.  If I never go back, I won't be disappointed. 

Bill:

Obviously, I understand why a golfer would feel a lack of value in the Glen Club's $180+ green fee. Of course there are probably better ways to spend it. But the course and it's management isn't really gunning for the same type of customer as Cog Hill as they are targeting the "business golfer" with an expense account. Business was great a few years ago, with 200+ golfers a day either paying for memberships or the greens fee. I haven't been back in a couple years, but I've heard that isn't the case quite as much anymore.

If you take the greens fee out of the equation, it's a pretty strong golf course. Perfect? No. But there are some really good holes (#2, #4, #6, #8, #9, #10, #12, #14, #15, & #16 being the strongest) and they generally keep it F&F with little rough which makes it play fun.  

Cog Hill is a nice facility and I respect everything it's ownership has done for golf in Chicago, but what they've done to #4 is make the course impossible for the average golfer, yet they made it simple enough where the tour pros can "point and shoot."

If money is taken out of the equation, and most on here played the Glen and Cog Hill back to back, I would bet that most would have more fun playing the Glen.

[PCCraig]

Pat,
No way the rough at Cog is 4" right now.  There are some spots in the lower areas on 3 and 7 where it gets heavy, but for most of the course it's 2 1/2-3"

I've been at the Pro-Am in years past when regular country club 10 handicaps could barely advance the ball out of the rough.  The course today is pretty tame.  

Tiger is dead on.  If the greens were worth a shit there would be 10 guys at 65.

Thanks for the first hand report Paul. I suppose for as tough as the weather has been for greens in the area this summer, it's been just as hard on the rough.   

[Tim_Cronin]

More on the greens starting in the fourth paragraph of my story on the first round:

http://golfinchicago.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/kuchars-64-leads-while-moore-ties-one-on/

In summary: Nobody's happy except the leaders.

[Bill Seitz]

Cog Hill is a nice facility and I respect everything it's ownership has done for golf in Chicago, but what they've done to #4 is make the course impossible for the average golfer, yet they made it simple enough where the tour pros can "point and shoot."

If money is taken out of the equation, and most on here played the Glen and Cog Hill back to back, I would bet that most would have more fun playing the Glen.

Pat, I'm sure my opinion is largely colored by the hype for the Glen Club not being proportional to my experience there.  I thought it was a good course, but no better than 10 or more other courses in Chicagoland.  When I played it, I had already played most, if not all of the high end public courses in Chicago.  If it had been the first one I'd played, I may have felt differently.  Pine Meadow was one of the first "good" courses I played after moving here from L.A., and I was really impressed with the layout and the conditions, and as a result, it's a course I go back to quite a bit (despite the greens being a bit sub-par over the last couple years).  Part of that was probably due to the fact that courses are just generally in better condition in Chicago, so it left a good impression on me at the time.  And of course, the greens fee at PM, while not cheap, is not exactly exorbitant.

As for Dubs, I think a small part of the fun is playing a course that the PGA Tour pros play, which admittedly is something the Glen Club can't duplicate.  I think post-renovation, Dubs is much tougher than before from the same yardage.  I want to say the tees I play there now are a bit shorter (maybe 200 yards?) than the tees I used to play, and with that taken into account, I think it's about the same.  I'm about a four, and I still consider it a pretty good round when I break 80 out there, but that was also the case before it was renovated.  I'm not sure what the changes have meant for a 12-15 handicapper. 

[Mark Smolens]

Pat, I guess I was there the year of less rough. I would say, however, that if you grow 4" rough, narrow the fairways and make the greens hard, just about any golf course can be made difficult. Does the IPGA's website have historical data for their events held at the Glen? Might be a fairer comparison. The section guys are great players, just not on the level of the minor league big kids. Wondering what kind of scores they shot there?

Adam, fair to say that we will have to agree to disagree on the Jemseks' business plan, but your suggestion to blow up the four courses to make two is the kind of thing that non-GCA folks will read and think that we're a bunch of idiots. . .

[PCCraig]

Pat, I guess I was there the year of less rough. I would say, however, that if you grow 4" rough, narrow the fairways and make the greens hard, just about any golf course can be made difficult. Does the IPGA's website have historical data for their events held at the Glen? Might be a fairer comparison. The section guys are great players, just not on the level of the minor league big kids. Wondering what kind of scores they shot there?

Adam, fair to say that we will have to agree to disagree on the Jemseks' business plan, but your suggestion to blow up the four courses to make two is the kind of thing that non-GCA folks will read and think that we're a bunch of idiots. . .

Mark:

Here are the results from the last Illinois Open held at the Glen Club in 2007:

http://ilpga.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/ilpga7/event/ilpga736/contest/1/leaderboard.htm

Mike Small won at -8, and interestingly enough Kevin Streelman (who's playing this week at Cog Hill) came in 3rd at -6. (3 round tournament).

For the Illinois Open (I looped in two at the Glen) the course was in pretty much the same shape it always was, except the greens were a little quicker and they tucked a few pins.



I'm not saying that the Glen is a better course than Cog Hill, or even a better PGA Tour host, only that it could potentially host a Tour event with the right set up.

[Adam Clayman]

Adam, fair to say that we will have to agree to disagree on the Jemseks' business plan, but your suggestion to blow up the four courses to make two is the kind of thing that non-GCA folks will read and think that we're a bunch of idiots. . .

If that's your way of calling me an idiot, I'll bite. My opinion of having the remaining ground available for a real estate component only sounds stupid, now, because of the timing in the current RE market. My idea was born before the downturn in RE. A savvy player might've predicted it, then change the GCA, and blown those courses up 15 years ago, hired the right architect, and had two world class courses, that could easily have held major championships. Then he'd have sold the RE as the market went up, before finally retracing after the ridiculous levels it reach earlier in this last decade. Besides, I didn't know non gca geeks read this shit, or that my one opinion, could reflect poorly on anything, or anybody, but me. But that's just me!

My point all along has been that ground there in Lemont, is better, than the golf courses that traverse it. You may love Dubbs, but there's always a but, when trying to qualify it as one the country's best courses. That's because it was forced between the courses that already existed and never had any decent flow to it's routing.

[Sven Nilsen]

Adam, fair to say that we will have to agree to disagree on the Jemseks' business plan, but your suggestion to blow up the four courses to make two is the kind of thing that non-GCA folks will read and think that we're a bunch of idiots. . .

If that's your way of calling me an idiot, I'll bite. My opinion of having the remaining ground available for a real estate component only sounds stupid, now, because of the timing in the current RE market. My idea was born before the downturn in RE. A savvy player might've predicted it, then change the GCA, and blown those courses up 15 years ago, hired the right architect, and had two world class courses, that could easily have held major championships. Then he'd have sold the RE as the market went up, before finally retracing after the ridiculous levels it reach earlier in this last decade. Besides, I didn't know non gca geeks read this shit, or that my one opinion, could reflect poorly on anything, or anybody, but me. But that's just me!

My point all along has been that ground there in Lemont, is better, than the golf courses that traverse it. You may love Dubbs, but there's always a but, when trying to qualify it as one the country's best courses. That's because it was forced between the courses that already existed and never had any decent flow to it's routing.

Sounds like the next armchair architect competition.  Lucky for Jim Colton the property already has a viable access road and maintenance building.

[Tim_Cronin]

Adam, fair to say that we will have to agree to disagree on the Jemseks' business plan, but your suggestion to blow up the four courses to make two is the kind of thing that non-GCA folks will read and think that we're a bunch of idiots. . .

If that's your way of calling me an idiot, I'll bite. My opinion of having the remaining ground available for a real estate component only sounds stupid, now, because of the timing in the current RE market. My idea was born before the downturn in RE. A savvy player might've predicted it, then change the GCA, and blown those courses up 15 years ago, hired the right architect, and had two world class courses, that could easily have held major championships. Then he'd have sold the RE as the market went up, before finally retracing after the ridiculous levels it reach earlier in this last decade. Besides, I didn't know non gca geeks read this shit, or that my one opinion, could reflect poorly on anything, or anybody, but me. But that's just me!

My point all along has been that ground there in Lemont, is better, than the golf courses that traverse it. You may love Dubbs, but there's always a but, when trying to qualify it as one the country's best courses. That's because it was forced between the courses that already existed and never had any decent flow to it's routing.

Actually, Adam, Dubsdread was largely built on property Joe Jemsek bought specifically for the course, most of it to the east of the original property, and some to the north. As I see the old aerials, only the eighth and ninth holes, 11th tee and second half of the 18th was on land already owned by Jemsek.

And it's Dubs, not Dubbs.

[SL_Solow]

I was out there again today.  My take; the Rees changes did not improve the course although they arguably made it harder.  The Dick Wilson/Joe Lee routing was and is just fine and takes good advantage of the site.  It was a very good golf course hampered in its efforts to get a "major" by the tremendous amount of play, the desire to operate at a profit and the need to move players around the course.  The changes lengthen the course and add extreme fairway bunkers that are, for want of a better term, formulaic.  Not particularly attractive or strategic but they do narrow the landing areas.  Putting aside the conditioning issues, there are a number of attempts to creat "greens within greens" through the use of spines running out of bunker capes which have little or no relationship to the surrounding topography.  Each "sub-green" has limited contour to allow faster green speeds.  The old surfaces were far more natural and attuned to the surrounding terrain but, again, these changes may have been perceived as being consistent with features which the USGA favors.  Finally, it is difficult to comment on greenskeeping problems unless one is on site regularly and/or has access to the data.  I agree that rebuilding the greens,planting them with A4, and installing subair  was done to insure premium conditions even in hot and humid summers.  There are a lot of elevated exposed greens but I don't know if they had winter kill related issues.  I only know that I heard from any number of the pros and several pro am participants that the greens were very uneven with a lot of bare spots.  The fairways are not what they should be either.

Finally, to the extent this has impacted on the reputation of the venue, it is a shame.  Regardless of whether one agrees with the decision to make the changes in an effort to get the US Open, the Jemsek family has been great for golf and only deserves good things. Joe, followed by his son Frank, brought quality golf to the public sector without having to add all the bells and whistles of the Country Club for a day operations.  In addition, they have been extremely charitable.  While I may not agree with all that has been done to the course, I am certain they were done with the best of intentions and I continue to hope the family meets with success.

[PThomas]

I was out there again today.  My take; the Rees changes did not improve the course although they arguably made it harder. 

that sums it up perfectly Shel