[Andrew Calcutt]

Pat,

You have played some of the best courses in the world, why are you defending the abomination that is hosting
the BMW?  It is not a good course, and it violates one of the old adages of the golden era architects -- each hole should
be unique.  Almost all of the green complexes look the same from the fairway -- elevated greens, deep bunkering, heavy rough
in between.  There is no place for the mid and high handicapper to run the ball to the hole, and it inhibits the ability for
all players to hit a good running recovery shot from trouble.

The Chicago Sun Times is also on board with sharing the opinions of the tour players:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/7662067-419/players-design-at-cog-hill-is-dreadful.html

I take further issue with your criticism of Phil.  Recently, he remarked about Jones' work at Atlanta Athletic Club.  He went
so far as to defend the non-pro in his statements -- the course would not be fun for them.  I think this is good for the game.
The tour pros are speaking up for the game as a whole, not merely for their careers or for their own difficulties. (Even if their intentions
are for personal gain, it's saying the right thing.)  The game is not currently attracting new players in the U.S. and maybe the design
styles and motive of certain architects has something to do with it.

The entire Cog Hill facility needs a makeover if it wants to compete and keep up in the golf world.  McDonald's in Oak Brook is
spending millions to upgrade and renovate its stores around the world, maybe it's time to consider the same in Lemont.

AC

[PCCraig]

Pat,

You have played some of the best courses in the world, why are you defending the abomination that is hosting
the BMW?  It is not a good course, and it violates one of the old adages of the golden era architects -- each hole should
be unique.  Almost all of the green complexes look the same from the fairway -- elevated greens, deep bunkering, heavy rough
in between.  There is no place for the mid and high handicapper to run the ball to the hole, and it inhibits the ability for
all players to hit a good running recovery shot from trouble.

The Chicago Sun Times is also on board with sharing the opinions of the tour players:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/7662067-419/players-design-at-cog-hill-is-dreadful.html

I take further issue with your criticism of Phil.  Recently, he remarked about Jones' work at Atlanta Athletic Club.  He went
so far as to defend the non-pro in his statements -- the course would not be fun for them.  I think this is good for the game.
The tour pros are speaking up for the game as a whole, not merely for their careers or for their own difficulties. (Even if their intentions are for personal gain, it's saying the right thing.)  The game is not currently attracting new players in the U.S. and maybe the design styles and motive of certain architects has something to do with it.

The entire Cog Hill facility needs a makeover if it wants to compete and keep up in the golf world.  McDonald's in Oak Brook is
spending millions to upgrade and renovate its stores around the world, maybe it's time to consider the same in Lemont.

AC

Aaaaand now-ah, on the stage-ah, is AC....

I wasn't defending Cog Hill as a world class golf course, only that it fits it's purpose. It wasn't built to be interesting, it was built to be long, hard, and difficult for most golfers. It's the public version of the tough Chicago golf course (in relation to Butler and Medinah). Remember, if the course is too hard for the everyday golfer, they have 3 other affordable golf courses on the same property to choose from. The Jemseks have done more to grow the game of golf than Phil Mickelson ever has. How many public golf courses does he own? How many has he designed or built?

Hindsight is always 20/20, but remember that in roughly 2005-2006 when the Jemseks decided to renovate #4, Jones was the Open "Doctor" and had a proven track record for getting what they wanted the most...a US Open on their public facility (IE Bethpage, Torrey Pines). They made a business decision to go with Jones and go for the Open, and Jones gave them want they wanted...I don't fault a guy for selling a product and running a business.

I forgot the source, but I remember there were rumors the owners were thinking of selling courses #1 and #3 for development, while bulldozing courses #2 and #4 and starting over with a new GCA. If that ever happened and they decided to being in a C&C or Doak...great...but when Phil begins talking about bringing in a hip GCA to come in and redesign the course he must not realize that redesigning a golf course isn't as easy as changing as a skin-tight button down golf shirt.

One more point, so since MCD is redesigning all of their stores to look modern and alike, does that mean that the golf industry should do the same to it's courses? Does every course have to look like a C&C or Doak with furry bunkers?

[Bill Seitz]

"A great golf course is a course that's challenging for the good player but playable for the average player," Mickelson said. "This is the exact opposite. It's playable, fine for us. We don't have any problems with it. But the average guy just can't play it."

What part of this statement, precisely, does anybody here disagree with?  

I don't think the place is impossible for the average player.  It's very difficult, yes, but I play there a few times per year with a guy who is about a 13-15 handicap, and he seems to do alright.  I think he shot a 37 or 38 on the front from the white tees the last time we were out, which was pretty impressive.  But I can't see how it would be much fun as an every week kind of course.  Then again, at $155 per round, how many people are really playing there every week?  I used to play it twice as much as I do now, but at that rate, it's getting harder and harder to justify it.  

Does anyone know how many rounds they do at Dubs every year, and how it compares to before the re-do?  The group I'm a part of used to have three or four tee times (Mark Smolens would know more about that), and they played pretty much every weekend.  Over the years, that dwindled to one tee time, and since the re-do, even that has been reduced to every other week.  There are two or three regulars, and a few of us who rotate in and out.  I have to think that play is down overall, but I wouldn't know.  The first few times I tried to play there, I went out as a single, waited an hour or two, and gave up.  It was really tough to get on.  I don't think that's the case anymore.  If so, I think part of the reason is that they can't decide whether they want to be a special occasion style course, or a course that you can play all the time.  They want to be both, and it's just not that easy to do.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think there is really a bigger picture issue here.

Much of architecture has moved away from the big, brawny style of the 70's (or maybe back to RTJ in the 50's)  It sure started as Sand Hills, as we know, although the shift in GD rankings from tough to good and other signals were there.  Maybe the USGA and players were just the last to catch on.  Tradition rules at the USGA, but players have always liked the old tracks, even as they out mode them with their long drives.

It's really nothing more than the changing of the guard.  While observors think they can flip a switch, it really is a paradigm shift and a few courses make choices that are from the last paradigm since no one really controls everything.

All of us old guys need to realize that is what is happening and get with the times, or at least, make sure our style doesn't get stale.  Hard reality for most of us. 

[Jud_T]

"A great golf course is a course that's challenging for the good player but playable for the average player," Mickelson said. "This is the exact opposite. It's playable, fine for us. We don't have any problems with it. But the average guy just can't play it."

What part of this statement, precisely, does anybody here disagree with?  

I don't think the place is impossible for the average player.  It's very difficult, yes, but I play there a few times per year with a guy who is about a 13-15 handicap, and he seems to do alright.  I think he shot a 37 or 38 on the front from the white tees the last time we were out, which was pretty impressive.  But I can't see how it would be much fun as an every week kind of course.  Then again, at $155 per round, how many people are really playing there every week?  I used to play it twice as much as I do now, but at that rate, it's getting harder and harder to justify it.  

Does anyone know how many rounds they do at Dubs every year, and how it compares to before the re-do?  The group I'm a part of used to have three or four tee times (Mark Smolens would know more about that), and they played pretty much every weekend.  Over the years, that dwindled to one tee time, and since the re-do, even that has been reduced to every other week.  There are two or three regulars, and a few of us who rotate in and out.  I have to think that play is down overall, but I wouldn't know.  The first few times I tried to play there, I went out as a single, waited an hour or two, and gave up.  It was really tough to get on.  I don't think that's the case anymore.  If so, I think part of the reason is that they can't decide whether they want to be a special occasion style course, or a course that you can play all the time.  They want to be both, and it's just not that easy to do.

Bill,

This is really the crux of the matter.  Absent an Open or at least a highly regarded tour course, I'm afraid they're going to lose some of their special occasion business as well as some of the regular tee time crowd.  It may well be a more challenging test now, but it's certainly not better and arguably less fun for the average guy who used to be able to get around without getting too beat up.  How many single digit public golfers are there who want to pony up $155 a week for a tough test with little other redeeming values?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Speaking of changing of the guard, I see a lot of change in the mentality of the average golfer in not getting beat up.  Anyone else?

Forward tees are getting shorter - below 5000 yards.

Regular tees are getting shorter - sometimes senior tees are below 6000 yards.

Bunkers taken out, etc.  Harder courses seeing less play.  Not a test of manhood anymore (sorry Melvyn) just a day of fun that doesn't feel like Chinese water torture.  I wonder if the Chinese refer to their water hazards as that?

[Jay Flemma]

All Rees knows is length and water and that's not architecture.  AAC had nine water holes...Oakland Hills, Winged Foot West, Olympic Club and Oakmont have - combined - two.

Jay,

How about Seminole ?

Pebble Beach ?

Maidstone ?

NGLA ?

Steve,

Frank Hannigan once told me that the last people you wanted to listen to about course set up and golf courses are the competitors since they tended to view everything, solely through their eyes to the exclusion of others.

Mu, if you clicked on the link, you saw the article also discussed Pebble and NGLA.

[PCCraig]

Pat,

Based on your definitive observations of Mickelson, you obviously have had some interaction and/or dealings with the guy. Perhaps you can share with the board his plans, both in the short and long term, of developing/purchasing and owning golf courses in Arizona and China? I think I speak for everyone here when I say thanks in advance.

David

David,

You mean Mickelson's plan to purchase 5 separate struggling private clubs in Arizona and combine them into one 5 location private club? I didn't know that was considered growing the game?

Or do you want to know more about his investment in Five Guys burger franchises?

Thanks in advance.

[Mike Hendren]

"A great golf course is a course that's challenging for the good player but playable for the average player," Mickelson said. "This is the exact opposite. It's playable, fine for us. We don't have any problems with it. But the average guy just can't play it."

What part of this statement, precisely, does anybody here disagree with?  

Dave, while you make a good point I can't help but wondering why Phil suddenly seems so concerned about the everyman.  He basically said the same thing about Atlanta Athletic Club.  Is he opinining, or posturing?  If the latter, why?

[Brian Hilko]

My big problem with Dubs is that I hit the same club to all four par 3's after the renovation from the back tee. It was annoying. How can Rees let this happen?

[Jim Colton]

Anyone have the details on the work Rees completed at Cog Hill (or a link to an old thread on the topic)?

Mark,

  I dug this up:

http://www2.cybergolf.com/sites/images/725/DubsRevision.pdf

[Mark Smolens]

My big problem with Dubs is that I hit the same club to all four par 3's after the renovation from the back tee. It was annoying. How can Rees let this happen?

I guess Rees was out there setting the tees that day? You hit the same club from 240 yards that you hit from 224 and 215 uphill and 215 downhill?

Are there pin locations on the renovated course where the tees could be set at 150 yards? How about a pin tucked over the bunker on the right on #12? With tour quality firmness that could certainly be a good enough test. If the players or pundits on this site don't like the variety in the lengths that par-3 holes play, it's not the architect's fault, it's the fault of the guy who's setting up the course.

Are the fairway bunkers severe and now in play for the guys with their names on their bags? Absofuckinglutely. So hit it short of the bunkers and have a longer iron in. Oh, but then you can't get it close to a pin tucked into one of the fingers that Wilson and Lee liked do much? Wah, wah, wah. Wait, isn't that an option, a difficult decision the player faces expressly because of the manner in which Rees Jones carried out his assigned task?

Pre-renovation, fairway bunkers on holes at Dubs like ## 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18 rarely came into play for the big hitters -- and that was basically true for all of the guys out there on Tour. Even the big hitters in my group on Saturday mornings could just blow it right over some of those bunkers. Today, a number of those bunkers are not even in play for the average hacks. For example, in April and May, when the fairways are soft and not running like we'll see this week, I don't even worry about hitting it to the bunker on the right side of #1 because I can't get it there. But from all the way back the average pro has to take that into consideration. . . making the course indisputably more difficult for him (but not for the "average" player Phil's so concerned about).

Phil Mickelson has probably forgotton more architecture than I'll ever know, but his complaints about the renovation work at Cog Hill making it "too difficult" for me and the chops I play with have no basis in reality.

[Bill Seitz]

My big problem with Dubs is that I hit the same club to all four par 3's after the renovation from the back tee. It was annoying. How can Rees let this happen?

I guess Rees was out there setting the tees that day? You hit the same club from 240 yards that you hit from 224 and 215 uphill and 215 downhill?

I think this complaint has more value for the daily fee player than the tour pro.  Personally I disagree with the complaint in general, which I've heard before from others.  For me, it's usually 5/6 on #2, 3/4 on #6, 3/4/5 on #s 12 and 14, but usually not the same club on both holes.  But there are no holes  where I'm hitting 7-9 irons.  There are times where, if you're going to post a score and you're playing the tees as set, the issue of similar yardages/clubs could potentially come up. 

But the PGA Tour sets the tees and pins for the event.  There's no reason they can't utilize the whole array of tee boxes if they want to set the par threes up at different yardages.  Or the par 4s and 5s for that matter.

[Howard Riefs]

Anyone have the details on the work Rees completed at Cog Hill (or a link to an old thread on the topic)?

Mark,

  I dug this up:

http://www2.cybergolf.com/sites/images/725/DubsRevision.pdf

No wonder it cost $5m. There wasn't a hole Rees didn't touch. Each green complex was rebuilt -- even the two nearby putting greens.

Sadly, instead of the Jemsek's landing a US Open, their prized course is in danger of losing its PGA Tour event.

[Mark Smolens]

Just watched Sean O'Hair hit 7 iron into #12, while somebody else shown hitting hybrid into #14. Both holes are same distance from back of tee box. . .

[JR Potts]

And Justin Rose just shot 63.....the course is way too hard.

[Jud_T]

"It's in great shape this year," Johnson said. "It's long, it's hard. You're not going to go very low here, so make a lot of pars and if you can sneak in a birdie every once in a while, then you're doing well."

He figured the key to the week was long irons.

"There's a few long par 4s where I hit a lot of 6-, 7- and 8-irons, 9-irons," he said. "Those are long irons to me."

Paging Sean Arble....

[Adam Clayman]

Potts- You point out another failure of the re-design. It was to toughen up the course to gain favor for an Open, BTW, that was likely truer with a USGA board that existed 20 years ago, not today. Apparently, it was toughened up for all those except those who might play in a US Open. Tiger shot 62 recently too.

Before the equipment advances, I think the CR was 64, shot in an NCAA event there by that pro... whose name escapes me now.... He holed out on the home hole at Bay Hill many moons ago,,,,,,Gamez?

[Tim_Cronin]

Adam, the course record was 68 until Robert Gamez's 64, which came in stroke-play qualifying for the U.S. Public Links in 1989. And isn't fully how the players who score low have nice things to say about a course. Happened again today on Dubsdread:

http://golfinchicago.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/an-english-rose-blooms-on-dubsdread/

[Howard Riefs]

Before the equipment advances, I think the CR was 64, shot in an NCAA event there by that pro... whose name escapes me now.... He holed out on the home hole at Bay Hill many moons ago,,,,,,Gamez?

Robert Gamez shot a 64 in the 2nd round of the US Pub Links hosted at Dubs in 1989. That was topped by Jeff Sluman's 63 at the Western in 1992.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-07-05/sports/9203010170_1_putt-jeff-sluman-open-at-pebble-beach

As mentioned, Tiger holds the course record of 62 and won four tournaments at Cog Hill. Perhaps if he had his game together and was playing this week he'd be the one vocal voice to defend the changes to the course.

[Doug Wright]

I think there is really a bigger picture issue here.

Much of architecture has moved away from the big, brawny style of the 70's (or maybe back to RTJ in the 50's)  It sure started as Sand Hills, as we know, although the shift in GD rankings from tough to good and other signals were there.  Maybe the USGA and players were just the last to catch on.  Tradition rules at the USGA, but players have always liked the old tracks, even as they out mode them with their long drives.

It's really nothing more than the changing of the guard.  While observors think they can flip a switch, it really is a paradigm shift and a few courses make choices that are from the last paradigm since no one really controls everything.

All of us old guys need to realize that is what is happening and get with the times, or at least, make sure our style doesn't get stale.  Hard reality for most of us. 

Jeff I think this is absolutely correct, as well as your comment that follows that today's players like easier courses. Why? Is it the aging of the golfing population combined with the silver spoon younger generation who want things easier? I don't know.

I'm glad Mickelson and other Tour pros are engaging in this kind of conversation. It is useful for us on GolfClubAtlas who want to discuss what works and doesn't work in golf course design.

[PThomas]

I think there is really a bigger picture issue here.

Much of architecture has moved away from the big, brawny style of the 70's (or maybe back to RTJ in the 50's)  It sure started as Sand Hills, as we know, although the shift in GD rankings from tough to good and other signals were there.  Maybe the USGA and players were just the last to catch on.  Tradition rules at the USGA, but players have always liked the old tracks, even as they out mode them with their long drives.

It's really nothing more than the changing of the guard.  While observors think they can flip a switch, it really is a paradigm shift and a few courses make choices that are from the last paradigm since no one really controls everything.

All of us old guys need to realize that is what is happening and get with the times, or at least, make sure our style doesn't get stale.  Hard reality for most of us.

good points Jeff..and I wonder if Mr. Jemsek hired the Open doctor whose influence on US Open designs was just starting its downward spiral

Adam in post 48 gets at this too by stating Rees work had greater appeal appeal to the usga types awhile ago

Adam- is that reason what you meant when you disagreed with me on the first page when i said I wish the Jemseks could have gotten an Open..i.e, you think they dont because they hired the wrong guy to do the type of re\design?

and i wonder if ANY architect could have made Cog open worthy without doing a MAJOR redsign

[Gary_K]

Adam, the course record was 68 until Robert Gamez's 64, which came in stroke-play qualifying for the U.S. Public Links in 1989. And isn't fully how the players who score low have nice things to say about a course. Happened again today on Dubsdread:

http://golfinchicago.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/an-english-rose-blooms-on-dubsdread/

From the above linked article:

Phil Mickelson, course renovator Rees Jones’ arch enemy, discovered that. He was 4-over after five holes thanks to a double-bogey on the par-3 second and bogeys on the fourth and fifth holes, but rallied to finish at 1-over 72. His adventure included a bogey at the last that commenced with a tee shot into the maintenance center, and would have been worse but for an approach that finished three feet from the cup.

I didn't know Rees uses maintenance centers as hazards in the middle ofthe fairway...

[Mike_Young]

Don't you think that Golf Architects are just like lawyers or many other professions.  I mean the average guy thinks F. Lee Bailey or Johnny Cochran etc are the cream of the crop when it comes to lawyers and in the mind of the average person that has never needed a lawyer they think these guys are the best.  Yet most of us know they are probably far from it.  That's the way the average person views golf course architects.  And while many here think Hanse or Doak or Coore are big names, the public still doesn't know them anything like they do the Rees, or Fazio's etc.  And they know us little regional guys even less.
Professional golfers and their opinions on golf design are not as advanced as most would think.JMO

[Bill Seitz]

I didn't know Rees uses maintenance centers as hazards in the middle ofthe fairway...

That maintenance center can jump out at you!  Trust me.   Of course, my experience is much like Phil's.  After hitting it into the maintenance center, the second tee ball always seems to find the fairway.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()