[Ross Harmon]

Hadn't see this posted yet, from Global Golf Post yesterday (4/23)...

"Jemsek Answers Cog Critics" (p. 19)... some notes:

- Frank says that the weather in 2010 definitely contributed to less than ideal playing conditions
- Says he'll be calling Rees Jones about some tweaks
- At the top of his list: eliminating all but the furthest bunker on the right side of #1 and "softening" the hill to the left of #12 green
- Frank says they've already made #5 a par-5 again and have shortened #9 from 613 yds to 586 yds
- Says Rees "made some changes that are ahead of the time"
- Definitely interested in getting a tournament back, still hopefully the U.S. Open

I think it will be good to soften the course for the average golfer that is paying big bucks to play. No doubt that the greens are extremely difficult on the course though, so that will continue to challenge the pros and advance players.

[Terry Lavin]

Jones made the course better AND harder, which was exactly what the customer thought he wanted.  These changes may help Dubsdread get the 2017 Illinois Open, but the US Open?  Never.

[Adam Clayman]

Jones made the course better AND harder, which was exactly what the customer thought he wanted.  These changes may help Dubsdread get the 2017 Illinois Open, but the US Open?  Never.

Better? Opinion.
Harder? Relative.

Why not step out on that limb and tell us why you think it's better? Harder?

 

Since the family has an in house architect, one has to ask Why they didn't use him? If it was for the Jones name. You're right, the owner got what he asked for.

[Jud_T]

Judge,

Harder yes, better no IMO.   Agreed that they can kiss their Open chances goodbye.  Only question is why they called Rees yet again...

[Howard Riefs]

I think it will be good to soften the course for the average golfer that is paying big bucks to play. No doubt that the greens are extremely difficult on the course though, so that will continue to challenge the pros and advance players.

What pros? The BMW/Western is moving up the road to Conway Farms.

[Bill Seitz]

Hadn't see this posted yet, from Global Golf Post yesterday (4/23)...

"Jemsek Answers Cog Critics" (p. 19)... some notes:

- Frank says that the weather last year definitely contributed to less than ideal playing conditions
- Says he'll be calling Rees Jones about some tweaks
- At the top of his list: eliminating all but the furthest bunker on the right side of #1 and "softening" the hill to the left of #12 green
- Frank says they've already made #5 a par-5 again and have shortened #9 from 613 yds to 586 yds
- Says Rees "made some changes that are ahead of the time"
- Definitely interested in getting a tournament back, still hopefully the U.S. Open

I think it will be good to soften the course for the average golfer that is paying big bucks to play. No doubt that the greens are extremely difficult on the course though, so that will continue to challenge the pros and advance players.

Presumably they meant the weather in 2010 contributed to less than ideal conditions.  The weather last year was perfect, and the conditions at Dubs were tremendous.  Part of that was due to a new Super as well. 

The changes mentioned don't seem to make much of a difference, though maybe they do for the pros.  The bunkers to the right of #1 don't bother me all that much, and probably save the big hitters from a worse fate, since they can still get home from there (not so much if they hammer through to the rough and trees).  12 may make a difference, I guess, in that it will be easier to get up and down, but that was never an easy up and down to begin with.  Changing par is irrelevant, in my opinion, and shortening #9 makes a difference only for those playing the back tees.  These don't really amount to all that much. 

[Terry Lavin]

Jones made the course better AND harder, which was exactly what the customer thought he wanted.  These changes may help Dubsdread get the 2017 Illinois Open, but the US Open?  Never.

Better? Opinion.
Harder? Relative.

Why not step out on that limb and tell us why you think it's better? Harder?

 

Since the family has an in house architect, one has to ask Why they didn't use him? If it was for the Jones name. You're right, the owner got what he asked for.

I'd say the course is better for several reasons.  First, they took out hundreds of trees, which allowed them to put angles into holes that were just chutes before.  The look of the course is much better with the tree removal and with the new look of the bunkers, which is a dramatic departure from the rather bland looking bunkers in the old design.  The elevation of a lot of the greens is also a visual improvement, IMHO.  As for harder, that's a pretty easy call, with the lengthening, the deep/steep factor of the bunkers and the internal contours and internal compartments of the greens.  All of these factors make the course better and harder.  Please note that I didn't say more enjoyable.  The course has never been an enjoyable day, regardless of the tees from which one plays.  It ain't called Dubsdread for nothing.

[Mike Demetriou]

Presumably they meant the weather in 2010 contributed to less than ideal conditions.  The weather last year was perfect, and the conditions at Dubs were tremendous.  Part of that was due to a new Super as well. 

Bill, I agree with you regarding the weather, but the conditions of the greens at Dubs last year were simply terrible. I played before the bout of rough weather we had in July, and after, and I can tell you that those greens were in terrible shape. If I remember correctly, the whining pros were really loud about the state of the greens, and I agreed with them.  I agree with hizzoner that the tree removal made parts of the course better, but I think that any such improvement (at least for amateurs) was lost by the increase in the placement and depth of the bunkers in the renovation.

[Howard Riefs]

Hadn't see this posted yet, from Global Golf Post yesterday (4/23)...

http://digital.globalgolfpost.com/globalgolfpost/20120423?sub_id=DwIi2fnUUBpkl#pg19

[Bill Seitz]

Presumably they meant the weather in 2010 contributed to less than ideal conditions.  The weather last year was perfect, and the conditions at Dubs were tremendous.  Part of that was due to a new Super as well.  

Bill, I agree with you regarding the weather, but the conditions of the greens at Dubs last year were simply terrible. I played before the bout of rough weather we had in July, and after, and I can tell you that those greens were in terrible shape. If I remember correctly, the whining pros were really loud about the state of the greens, and I agreed with them.  

I played it probably three times throughout the year, and I don't recall the greens being an issue.  The 2010 greens were awful, and would leave a crater with a 60 yard pitch, but last year my recollection is that they were terrific.  I also don't recall griping from the pros about conditioning, especially compared to 2010.  I seem to remember they all thought it was much better conditioned.  Then again, I drink an awful lot of beer, and that could be affecting my memory.  

[Ross Harmon]

Sorry, got my years mixed up... I updated my original post to 2010.

I played the course once last year, in early June after a huge rainstorm. Frank told me they got 4.5" the night before and the course was in surprisingly playable condition with little standing water. That's really great drainage for the midwest!

[Sven Nilsen]

Terry:

What holes were significantly improved by the tree removal?  After playing out there for a year with a permanent tee time post-changes, its hard to recall what the course was like before.  I know they opened up 9 a bit, but its still a corridor.  And I don't recall the trees ever really being a problem elsewhere on the course.

As for the elevation of the greens creating a visual improvement, that same increase in elevation made those greens a lot harder to hit, and when you miss the recovery from the now deeper bunkers is that much harder (something you cite in that category).

I guess I'm in the crowd that in the case of Cog thinks harder doesn't necessarily mean better. 

Sven

[Terry Lavin]

Sven,

There are more in your camp than mine. For some reason, it seems like the severity of the Jones redo left people with warped and sentimental recollections of the earlier version of the course, which was actually quite bland.

In terms of tree removal, holes 3,4,7 and 8 were all materially aided by tree removal. 8 in particular was a huge and overdue change. It was a zero hole before and is no pushover now. #10 had some removal, but I think the hole would be a lot better if they got rid of most of the trees on the inside of the dogleg. A fair amount of tree clutter was removed short and left of 11. A ton Of trees and undergrowth was removed on 13 short of the green which looks much better. Finally, there was modest cleanup on 16 which is now the prettiest hole on the course.

To me, Cog is as good a course as Conway Farms, the course that replaced it. Conway has planted hundreds of perfectly useless trees in an avowed effort to frame greens and for fairway separation. Much of the original somewhat naturalist feel of the place has been relentlessly dumbed down by the membership which seems bent on making it a parkland course. As for difficulty, I can't imagine that the pros will do anything but kill the course, which is probably what the whiners wanted all along.

[Bill Seitz]

So long as we're talking about Jemsek courses and foliage removal, has anyone else been to Pine Meadow this year?  They removed a TON of brush.  Not so many trees, but that's not much of an issue since the trees never really affected the playing corridors anyway, but it's really noticeable on 3, 4, 5 & 6.  Also on 10, 11, 17.  That walk from 10 green to to 11 tee used to be through a dense forest.  Now from the tenth tee you have  clear view of the 11th tee and 17th green.  The greens were still way too slow (though they appeared healthy enough to cut faster), but the rest of the course looked really nice.

[PCCraig]

So long as we're talking about Jemsek courses and foliage removal, has anyone else been to Pine Meadow this year?  They removed a TON of brush.  Not so many trees, but that's not much of an issue since the trees never really affected the playing corridors anyway, but it's really noticeable on 3, 4, 5 & 6.  Also on 10, 11, 17.  That walk from 10 green to to 11 tee used to be through a dense forest.  Now from the tenth tee you have  clear view of the 11th tee and 17th green.  The greens were still way too slow (though they appeared healthy enough to cut faster), but the rest of the course looked really nice.

That's really interesting Bill. You're right there aren't any holes out there where trees come into play within the playing corridor. But on the perimeter of each hole was a ton of thick brush and trees. Nice to see them cleaning that out and opening up some vistas.

[PThomas]

So long as we're talking about Jemsek courses and foliage removal, has anyone else been to Pine Meadow this year?  They removed a TON of brush.  Not so many trees, but that's not much of an issue since the trees never really affected the playing corridors anyway, but it's really noticeable on 3, 4, 5 & 6.  Also on 10, 11, 17.  That walk from 10 green to to 11 tee used to be through a dense forest.  Now from the tenth tee you have  clear view of the 11th tee and 17th green.  The greens were still way too slow (though they appeared healthy enough to cut faster), but the rest of the course looked really nice.

and fyi the Jemseks are not involved at PM any longer ...

[Howard Riefs]

That's really interesting Bill. You're right there aren't any holes out there where trees come into play within the playing corridor. But on the perimeter of each hole was a ton of thick brush and trees. Nice to see them cleaning that out and opening up some vistas.

Good to hear. Trees really only came into play in cutting the corner on #2.

and fyi the Jemseks are not involved at PM any longer ...

Interesting. Time to notify their webmaster.



http://www.pinemeadowgc.com

[Bill Seitz]

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. 

[Tim_Cronin]

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.

[David Cronheim]

I played Cog Hill a few years ago, albeit only a few weeks before it closed BWM prep, and I thought it was a good course that had been tricked up to within an inch of it's life. It doesn't need a renovation, it needs a restoration. I'm a 3, I shot maybe 78 or 79 from the tips, but my buddies who were bogey golfers to 100-shooters each lost over a dozen balls and none of them broke 120. It was a miserable (and pricey) experience for them. I can't see the course making any money setting up a course that is too hard for the average golfer to handle or enjoy.

[Mark Smolens]

"Each lost over a dozen balls" 

Sorry, but when I read this line my bs alert went into overdrive. Unless the rough was so deep (and it would have to be U.S. Open deep) that balls were being lost yards off the fairway, then I question the possibility of anyone of any skill level losing over a dozen balls at Dubs. I've played hundreds of rounds there with a lot of bad golfers, and the thing that's almost universally noted is that even for the average chop they can get around the course without losing a bunch of golf balls. There just aren't that many shots over hazards that would cause one to lose a ball -- even if you spray the ball on 3 or 4, you'll most likely find your ball in those ponds; yes you can lose a ball on 7, and right on 8, but now you can't even lose a ball in the hazard left on 8; I suppose you can lose one right on 11 -- though if you go into those bushes you'll most likely find your ball and several others!; tee shot on 13 can be lost right, though an easy find in the bushes/trees; if you hit one in the hazard on 14, you're most likely not a bogey golfer!; depending on the wind, tee shot on 15 can be lost, as well as hook on 16; left of green on 18.

Dubs gets lots of criticism on this site, and people are certainly entitled to their opinions. But as others have noted, this course was intended by its owners to be a difficult test of golf. If you can't carry the ball in the air onto a green for your approach shot, play Cog #2. But to intimate that bogey golfers are going to lose a lot of balls on Dubsdread is simply not founded in reality. If you lose a dozen balls on that course, you have no business playing there (and please, dear God, don't ever be playing in front of me!).

[SL_Solow]

Following up on Mark's thread, the Jemseks have sold all available permanent tee times for years on the weekend and are generally crowded during the week for many years.  Holding the tourney hasn't really been about money for them, they are genuinely interested in promoting golf as well as their own club.

[Jud_T]

Shel,

Have you played the course since the recent Rees overhaul?  Aside from the much-needed tree clearing, do you like the changes personally?

[SL_Solow]

Jud;  I have spoken to this before.  Personally, I am not a fan of the changes.  I have no doubt that Frank undertook the changes with the best intentions.  It was his father's expressed dream to host an open at a true public facility in Chicago and Frank shares that dream.  He thought that Cog would not get the call and believed that the open doctor could get him there.  Not only did he likely fail; I think the course is less enjoyable.  But I also think the pros piled on in their criticism.  The first year a good portion of the problem was conditioning as compared to other tour stops.  If the criticisms of the design were shots at Rees, they also threw a long time friend under the bus in Frank Jemsek.  That said, I can't say i am a fan nor did I like many of the changes at Medinah, particularly the redesign of the 2nd green.

[David Cronheim]

"Each lost over a dozen balls" 

Sorry, but when I read this line my bs alert went into overdrive. Unless the rough was so deep (and it would have to be U.S. Open deep) that balls were being lost yards off the fairway, then I question the possibility of anyone of any skill level losing over a dozen balls at Dubs. I've played hundreds of rounds there with a lot of bad golfers, and the thing that's almost universally noted is that even for the average chop they can get around the course without losing a bunch of golf balls. There just aren't that many shots over hazards that would cause one to lose a ball -- even if you spray the ball on 3 or 4, you'll most likely find your ball in those ponds; yes you can lose a ball on 7, and right on 8, but now you can't even lose a ball in the hazard left on 8; I suppose you can lose one right on 11 -- though if you go into those bushes you'll most likely find your ball and several others!; tee shot on 13 can be lost right, though an easy find in the bushes/trees; if you hit one in the hazard on 14, you're most likely not a bogey golfer!; depending on the wind, tee shot on 15 can be lost, as well as hook on 16; left of green on 18.

No question at least a dozen because they had to stop at the turn to reload. The rough was indeed US Open deep. Any ball that went into the rough was going to be a challenge to find. Now, as I said it was a few weeks before they closed the course for the BMW, so I assumed they had the rough way up so they could cut it back to an appropriate length, but still...No BS whatsoever.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()