Why don't you hear much about Milwaukee CC?

[Jim Franklin]

I played there yesterday in 40 degree temps and 25+mph winds and had a blast. I wish it was warmer, but the course was fantastic. I loved the short grass around the greens that allowed the player to play some sort of recovery shot as opposed to 5 inch rough and hacking it out. Was the course always designed like that or did this thinking evolve?

Sorry I do not have any pictures. I am not a photo guy, but....

What do others think of the course?

[PCCraig]

Jim:

You don't hear much about Milwaukee CC because few people get to play it, and even fewer bother to travel to Milwaukee just to play it. It's a great club and a really really good golf course. I've only played it once, so I can't attest to the changes made over the years.

[Phil McDade]

Jim:

Milwaukee CC is a very low-key course -- one of those places that shuns publicity, probably because they don't need it. Well-established membership, very good maintenance meld, and a treasure of a course. They did host the US Mid-Am championship a few years ago, and they occasionally host local qualifying for USGA championships. A guy I used to work with, who has played every single good-to-great course in Wisconsin, views it -- by a decent margin -- as the best in the state.

Here's a photo thread of the course from the US Mid-Am, and another thread on the par 4 9th, a terrific short par 4 that deserves a place among the game's best, in my view:

Milwaukee CC:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36505.0.html


The 9th at Milwaukee CC:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,37107.0.html

[Jim Franklin]

Thanks Phil. I remember the thread about the mid-am, but the other was news to me. I loved #9 as it played dead into a 25mph wind for us which is not the prevaling wind. The chipping areas behind the green are very cool and that false front is nasty.

[Phil McDade]

Jim:

That false front on #9 can't be much fun into that kind of wind. A great short hole.

[Jim Franklin]

Fortunately I flew my ball well past the hole, but then had a downwind, downhill putt. Great hole, great course that more people should experience.

[Andy Troeger]

Jim,
We need to start a thread on one of the courses we don't agree on--otherwise it will seem like we agree all the time after these trips. However, I must agree on Milwaukee. Great club and wonderful course.

As mentioned, the short grass around the greens really made short shots more interesting. I tried to run it up out of the rough on #2 and just caught the side slope and ended up in the right bunker and then putted around the bunker on the right of the 18th for a routine par. You could try all kinds of shots off those lies--that aspect reminded me of Bandon. So did the temps and the wind!


Phil,
Jim mentioned the 9th as his favorite on the course yesterday when I asked him. I had a little more trouble (self-induced) with the false front and ended up with a bogey. Great little hole--I'm not sure it wouldn't be harder with the wind to get it up there and stop it. The green at the 11th was very cool as well.

I can't give it best-in-state, though, mainly because Blackwolf Run is one of my all-time favorites and very few courses beat it out. I'd probably have it in the top 20-25 in the country. I like the Straits a lot too, but Milwaukee is comfortably in the Top 100 nationally and not at the end of the list either. I played a quick round (because of impending rain) at Lawsonia the day before and enjoyed that tremendously too. I'll have to get back to both with better weather another time!

[RJ_Daley]

I know of another low key Wisconsin club that is not as good as MCC, yet way better than most anyone realizes.  That is North Shore CC in Menasha.  Low key memberships, are not exactly conducive to a cult of GCA afficianados desiring to discuss their merits, unless you can attend the rare event like that Mid-Am or can score the rare invite...    

We should invent a rarity or exclusivity scale based on what % of GCA contributors who have actually played at some of these 'low key membership' club courses, then correlate them to a Doak scale, or something like that.  

[Tom_Doak]

RJ:  Funny you should nominate the Doak scale for Milwaukee CC and North Shore CC since we have done work at both.  [Bruce Hepner and Brian Slawnik did all the work at North Shore; Don Placek and I have done most of the work at Milwaukee CC.]

You don't hear much about them because they are wonderful clubs that don't care so much about rankings and out-of-town guests, and because North Shore CC doesn't have a famous architect pedigree.

[RJ_Daley]

TD, do you want to rate them, on your scale, and low key-exclusive scale? 

I'm not looking to act as a Renaissance PR-promotions guy... but what is excellent, is excellent.  As I've written and posted some photos in the past, when I was lucky enough to ride around with BH when he was making a pre-remodel site visit at NSCC, and then return with the super on a post remodel tour.  Combined with a great super who really was into the merits of what was done to bring out the old bones of the fine course and to maintain it as intended, I was blown away by how good the work was.  I don't know what exactly what was done at MCC, but the after remodel presentation sure was something Phil and I wrote about quite a bit after the mid-am we attended. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Jim, I played there about five years ago in a five ball. The course was rely wonderful. The terrain was good and the routing was brilliant. I thought it used the terrain phenomenally well. For me the course came alive around the greens. The locker room is not a bad place to hang out either.

[Chris Cupit]

MCC is fantastic. I loved holes 8,9, 10 (especially good after the tree removal opened up the view of the water), 11 and 18.  #7 was a really neat dogleg right par four but given the fairway bunkers on the right I wondered why some of the right trees were not cut back. I can remember thinking that if they could be trimmed back or removed the preferred angle into the green would be available to a great tee shot that challenged the right side.  As it was the tree line really forced you left and some players in the mid-am actually hit three woods romkeep from going through the fairway

I also liked the par three sixth.  Back nine par threes were not nearly as interesting to me but I can't remember why.  The 12th across the river was pretty but I can't remember what the green was like and 16 or 17 was a strong, tough hole but I also can't remember much about the green.

Just a fabulous golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

Chris:

We haven't done a lot at Milwaukee CC yet; most of our work has been on holes 10 and 15, and last fall we did a fair amount of work on the first hole (after the Mid Am).  I've told them that the holes where I think we could help the most are 5, 6 and 7, but I'm not sure when they will want to get around to it.

[Chris Cupit]

Was 15 the long straight par four?  Or is that 16?  I also liked the par five along the river on the back (#15 i think) and the second shot into what I think is 16 green with a nice tree off to the side was a great look to my eye.

TD,

I am guessing it is always preferable to create something from scratch but with the ability to work on some great courses like MCC, are those opportunities at all comparable to building your own course from scratch?

The before and after pics of #10 were quite dramatic.  There was tons a great stuff there.  First tee by clubhouse, 8 green, the entire ninth hole and especially the great sitting and viewing area between nine green and the clubhouse, tenth hole and green set into the hill, eleven green and eighteen green with the amazing fall off that could funnel a golf ball right into the golf shop!?!  Low key, really cool spot.

[Tom_Doak]

The fifteenth is the par-5 along the river.  We changed the approach and bunkering, and extended the tee back nearly 100 yards to make a better connection, after Art Hills had moved the 14th green a few years earlier.

As for your general question about working on older courses -- I have a lot of respect for older courses, and my associates really like to work on them to hone their skills and to get more familiar with the design concepts.  Plus, the jobs are shorter and they are treated like kings, as opposed to the nine-month grind of construction on a real new course, which is often out in the boondocks somewhere and away from comfy living quarters and good food.  [Bordeaux, where I am today, being a notable exception.] 

Personally, though, I enjoyed consulting work a lot more 15-20 years ago than I do now.  In most cases, the work just moves too slowly, and there is too much politics to cut through, when the really important work to be done takes only a matter of days or weeks ... for example, at Milwaukee it has taken four YEARS just to improve 3-4 holes, when we could finish the work on all 18 holes in a matter of a month or two if they'd just turn us loose.  The change to #10 was very dramatic, because they had never paid attention to the view; but in general the changes we make are more subtle, and not as exciting, because we are not going to change the two elements which really make the course -- the routing and the greens.

I guess the truth is that for most of us it's a rare experience to get to build new courses which have the potential to be as good as the places where we consult -- but if you are lucky enough to get those chances, that's what we'd all rather do.  The new courses are also fun for me because I have assembled so many good guys that it makes my part of the job relatively easy; I can be on site for 20 or 30 days and watch every green be shaped and adjust them on the fly, whereas the lead associate and shapers are there 6-9 months or more, and they get restless and tired of going back and forth to the same place.

[Phil McDade]

Personally, though, I enjoyed consulting work a lot more 15-20 years ago than I do now.  In most cases, the work just moves too slowly, and there is too much politics to cut through, when the really important work to be done takes only a matter of days or weeks ... for example, at Milwaukee it has taken four YEARS just to improve 3-4 holes...

That quickly?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Jim great question. It is a wonderful course.

[Patrick_Sisk,_CGCS]

Jim,

40 degrees and a 25MPH wind has been considered a fairly decent day this year.  This has been quite an interesting (read confusing and aggravating) "spring" for many of us across the country this year. 

As mentioned previously on this board, MCC may be the best preserved work of Charles Alison in the U.S.  "Tinkering" over the years made some of the features eventually stand out as being incorrect and with the help of Mr. Doak, Mr. Placek and the rest of the Renaissance Men we've been whittling away.  The pace of work would certainly seem pedestrian to most but our members and I appreciate it for numerous reasons, a handful are outlined below.
1. The finish work has been completed in house and, as a result, we have the time and ability to spend on quality control for minute details.
2. Change is difficult for most members, regardless of the Club, to accept.  By keeping the pace deliberate all have bought into what we're doing.
3. All work completed, aside from a new irrigation system, has been paid for under our ordinary capital and/or operating budgets.  No assessments have been necessary.  Not a bad thing in this economy.

I certainly understand Tom's position on new construction vs. consulting and how his preference has changed over the course of his career.  To his point about his team, I am constantly impressed in how much time they spend touring the course and studying various features.  That time has paid dividends here and elsewhere I suspect.

This fall we will be embarking on Tom's highly recommended attention to holes 5, 6 and 7.  Most of the tree work has already been performed and I can't wait to work with the boys in figuring out these three fine golf holes.


Pat

[Jim Franklin]

From my experience, a lot of members do not like tree removal. I did not see the first hole or any hole at MCC prior to last week, but the new vistas are terrific. Skip showed me pictures of some of the holes before some trees were removed and it looks a great deal better now. All in all, the course was fabulous and I really need to get back there when the weather is decent.

[Nigel Islam]

Is Milwaukee CC is considered Colt and Alison's best work in the US? Never played it just curious. (Aside from whatever influence Colt had at Pine Valley)

[Wayne_Kozun]

Is Milwaukee CC is considered Colt and Alison's best work in the US? Never played it just curious. (Aside from whatever influence Colt had at Pine Valley)

How does Milwaukee compare to Hamilton and Toronto, Colt's two courses in Canada?

[Ron Csigo]

I played Milwaukee Country Club on a perfect summer day last month and enjoyed the golf course immensely.  I especially liked the shaved down areas around the greens that allowed for multiple recovery options after hitting a wayward approach shot.  Obviously, the holes along the river are fantastic (#'s 10, 11, 12) but the best hole there is certainly #9, IMO.  It makes me wonder if they've ever considered flipping the 9s so that #9 becomes the closing hole.  It would certainly make for an exciting 18th hole ala Olympic especially with the clubhouse as the backdrop with the patio and lawn chairs overlooking the green.  By no means is this short hole an easy birdie hole either. There's just something about the current finishing hole playing down towards the pro shop that seems awkward.  Just my two cents.

[Phil McDade]

Ron:

That's an interesting thought -- but I also like how the 9th fits into the routing, as the course features two holes right in a row (the short par 3 8th and the 9th) that require some thought about how to take them on, and often with short irons, compared to the full-bodied shots required earlier (and later) in the round. One of the things I like about the 18th (see my linked photo thread for an example) is how those two fairway bunkers can come into play for the player on the tee deciding how to take on the hole. If you try to carry that big yawning bunker on the left, and are successful, you are rewarded with a level lie and a slightly downhill look to an open green. Play away from that big bunker, and you may be stuck behind the right-hand bunker, shooting blind into the green, probably off an un-level lie, and with the greenside bunkers on the right probably coming into play more often. It's something of a deceptive risk-reward hole that's not that evident on the tee. And I love the shaved backside of the 18th green for the too bold player -- risks running one up against the clubhouse.

Wayne: I think Milwaukee CC is mostly, if not all, Alison -- don't know what if any role Colt had in the course. It certainly bears in the bunkering that flashed-up, sharp-edged Alison bunker look.

[Tom_Doak]

Milwaukee CC is all Charles Alison's work, Mr. Colt was never in America after WW I.

Well, almost all Alison's work -- the ninth hole that was just nominated for the best on the course was built by Robert Trent Jones, when the club decided to build their swimming pool on the site of the old ninth.  I don't have any sense of what the old hole was like, but I doubt it was better than the current one.

[Ron Csigo]

Phil - Were the players in the Mid Am playing their tee shots away from that left hand bunker on #18?  At 240 yards from the tee, I'm surprised why each player wouldn't just challenge that bunker and go over it.  Playing to the right leads to more difficulties on the hole.  If the player is short, it results in a blind approach off an uphill lie.  Furthermore, if you hit it too long and end up in the right fairway bunker, then you have tree issues and a difficult angle of approach to the green.  The approach shot must be precise especially with the greens shaved off edges.  If you do end up going long, then you'll be faced with a difficult uphill pitch from a tight lie from the first tee.  Good luck on this recovery shot especially with a gallery of pro shop attendants and other golfers watching.