News:

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


Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tweaks coming at Cog Hill (Dubsdread)
« Reply #25 on: April 29, 2012, 08:58:24 AM »
So the consensus is .... in spite of all the bzillions spent on it, it is a very pedestrian but highly penal course for the top 200 in the world ....  ?? and nothing will change that ... ??
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

Jim Tang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tweaks coming at Cog Hill (Dubsdread)
« Reply #26 on: April 29, 2012, 10:07:19 AM »
I was a Cog Hill last year and was not impressed.  I thought many holes seemed redundant; brutally difficult, long and  narrow.  I thought there was very little variety and few options.  It just wasn't much fun.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2012, 10:47:45 AM by Jim Tang »

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tweaks coming at Cog Hill (Dubsdread)
« Reply #27 on: April 29, 2012, 10:15:55 AM »
If #4 is too hard, there's always #s 1, 2 and three. But maybe those are too easy!
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tweaks coming at Cog Hill (Dubsdread)
« Reply #28 on: April 29, 2012, 10:33:01 AM »
If they can continue to fill the tee sheet all season at $155 a pop more power to them.  I'm not convinced there are that many strong public players or expense account wannabe's once the Tour halo effect goes bye-bye.  In it's previous incarnation, the course was enjoyable for a much larger segment of the golfing population and the greens had a lot more variety IMO.  A travesty for such an important family to Chicago area golf history...
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

Jim Tang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tweaks coming at Cog Hill (Dubsdread)
« Reply #29 on: April 29, 2012, 10:53:04 AM »
Terry -

#'s 1 - 3 are not too easy.  I'm just upset that the current version, at least for me, is a lot less fun to play.  I get they're trying to attract the U.S. Open but I fear, in order to do that, they've made some sacrifices to the enjoyability of a round for the average guy. 

I'm 40, so maybe in my 20's I would have wanted the challenge that Cog Hill offers.  Not so much, today.  I'm not sure if I was smarter then, or now.

Paul Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tweaks coming at Cog Hill (Dubsdread)
« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2012, 11:11:14 AM »
I played it once last year and thought it was in great shape, but got tired of having a bunker in front of every green (probably not every :-)).  I think it is on a great piece of land but not fun to play.  My friend and I got paired up with another twosome and every hole they would it in a bunker and take forever to get out :-(.

On the other hand, I figured the owner got what they wanted from Rees Jones - a very tough course in hopes of a holding a major.  I would really enjoy the course if they removed half the bunkers (especially most of the ones guarding all sides of the greens).  But I am sure that would make it too easy for the Pros.
Paul Jones
pauljones@live.com

David Cronheim

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tweaks coming at Cog Hill (Dubsdread)
« Reply #31 on: April 30, 2012, 02:49:45 PM »
I think the problem with Rees' redesign is that it's hard in a completely uncreative way, which is why so many of us on GCA dislike it so much. Anyone can make a golf course hard by making most of the holes long, narrow, and fronted by deep bunkers. Throw in absurdly deep rough and you've got a brutal golf course that isn't that much fun to play.

I'd challenge an architect to come up with at 6,700 yd course where pros could/would still hit drivers off roughly the same number of tees they'd hit driver off of on a 7,300 yd course, but that was equally challenging. That would show a little creativity.
Check out my golf law blog - Tee, Esq.

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tweaks coming at Cog Hill (Dubsdread)
« Reply #32 on: April 30, 2012, 05:09:42 PM »
I think the problem with Rees' redesign is that it's hard in a completely uncreative way, which is why so many of us on GCA dislike it so much. Anyone can make a golf course hard by making most of the holes long, narrow, and fronted by deep bunkers. Throw in absurdly deep rough and you've got a brutal golf course that isn't that much fun to play.

I'd challenge an architect to come up with at 6,700 yd course where pros could/would still hit drivers off roughly the same number of tees they'd hit driver off of on a 7,300 yd course, but that was equally challenging. That would show a little creativity.

David:

I think you've nailed it with respect to Cog.  RJ took a very one dimensional approach in trying to toughen up the course.  Surely there are other alternatives that could allow for playability by the mid- to high-handcapper.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Howard Riefs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tweaks coming at Cog Hill (Dubsdread)
« Reply #33 on: August 16, 2012, 09:16:42 AM »
and fyi the Jemseks are not involved at PM any longer ...

I think it was Mark Smollens who told me that they still had it this year, but it was up for bid going forward, and that the Jemseks weren't likely to keep it, or at least weren't likely to win the bidding. 
They lose control of the course on Oct. 31. Looks like Billy Casper Golf will get it on a 10-year lease. Frank Jemsek didn't want to renew at the price the Archdiocese of Chicago wanted.


I heard via a regular at Pine Meadow that the Jemseks ended up working out a lease with the Archdiocese that will enable them to keep control of the course. Hopefully, they can keep the course in good shape despite the additional spend on the new lease.

"Golf combines two favorite American pastimes: Taking long walks and hitting things with a stick."  ~P.J. O'Rourke

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back