University of Michigan - Changes to #6

[Brent Carlson]

For all the grief Dave Brandon takes, the restoration of UMGC is a feather in his cap.  Already a great course, it will only get better.  Now we know where all the seat license money is going.     Keep us abreast of the additional changes.

[Ari Techner]

Changes look great.  Looking forward to seeing the changes myself in the spring.  I am a huge fan of #6 and would consider it one of the great short par 4s I have played mostly because of the day to day variety that the green presents.  I did not really consider it a "drivable" short par 4 based on the way the green sits and I made far more birdies laying up than hitting it closer to the green w driver.  Playing the course as much as possible when I was in school there the 6th was always one of the holes I looked most forward to playing.   They did put the hole location in the back quote often back then.  Looks like it will be even better now.

[PCCraig]

I'd say the 6th is world class based on the green alone.

[Chris_Hufnagel]

Chris- I apologize if i took your response the wrong way  

No worries BCowan...

I was fortunate to find GCA a long time ago and have benefited tremendously from the time, investment, and sharing of both knowledge and opinions people have made here...

1. In debating courses, holes, rankings, and maintenance practices;
2. the Definitive Threads along with the hole-by-hole death matches;
3. in reading and re-reading the "Feature Interviews" and "In My Opinion" sections;
4. and clicking through courses in the "Course by Country" tab.  

I admit have never written a one-page paper on a golf hole let alone a four-page one, so when you mentioned you had completed one - especially one about a short par-4 which we like to discuss - I thought it would be something worth seeing, at the same time I thought perhaps someone else might be interested as well.

I am curious as well about it being graded as Jason Thurman mentioned, was it for a class?

Chris.

[Matt Bielawa]

That 4th tee is the reason I'd be hesitant about cutting more fairway on the right of 6, though it would make some architectural sense.  I always feel vulnerable standing on the 4th tee, though those trees are pretty good defenders.  A few holes on that front nine are a shooting gallery.  

If the pin is in the front, I just hit driver as far as I can and air for the front bunker.  Without a helping wind, I'm usually not long enough to get to the green, and I take my chances getting up and down from the bunker or the front rough.

If it's in the back, I lay back a little with 3W or 5W and take my chances with more of a full wedge approach.  That front bunker is death with a pin in the back.  I've made plenty of 3's, and plenty of 6's on #6, which is what makes it so fun.

If I could drive the ball a little longer, then it would REALLY be fun.

[BCowan]

Chris

    I do a 4-6 page monthly paper with a graphic for an online class given by an unnamed Arch.  He doesn't grade the paper, just gives feed back.  I emailed it to Ran, and i have your business card somewhere in my golf bag, i can email it to you if you like?  The class in a way  pushes me to do research and challenge myself.  I believe the paper for #6 UofM was to pick a hole that i have played and elaborate on shot values and strategic design principles.  I concluded that it had a hint of heroic too.

Ari-- I seldom ever go for it unless down wind and pin has to be middle to back.  Usually when i start off bad, i pull out the driver.  I agree you make much better scores laying back.  Back hole location isn't used much, brings double in play if you are not precise.  With #3 being a tough par 5, the 6th gives you a chance to get a birdie and get back in the game, if you haven't stumbled too much at the beginning.  

[Sean_A]

Below are a few pix clearly demonstrating there is a horrible tree problem all the way up both sides of the hole.  This reminds me a bbit of what 13 used to look like.  The cart path is also terribly placed. The last pic offers a good sense of the elevation change near the green - its very difficult to drive because its all carry.  There is also a bank of rough between the fairway and green.  I think fairway should go up the right side a bit where the path is.  Also, in my experience, puttting from the bottom to an upper left hole location can't be done.  A good putt will leave maybe 5-6 feet to go.  The bank off the bunker isn't pronounced enough to swing balls over.  Maybe that will be rectified or maybe the intention of a two putt tap in from the bottom was never on.  I don't really know.  




Ciao

[BCowan]

Sean i agree with you on the cart path.  the bank of rough between the fairway and the green i see many courses go back and forth between should it be rough or fairway.  When it is kept fairway it becomes a divot pool at the bottom.  I would add 5 yards to the right, put you can still run it into the ridge/slope.  Putting from the bottom up is very hard, you almost need to chip it, but not allowed for everyday play.  In fact putting up will lead to a 4 putt if you don't hit it hard enough.  Getting it to 5 feet going up is pretty great and you would have to be on the front right to do so.  I think you are right, that a two putt tap in from the bottom up wasn't his intention.  He has to punish you for poor distance control or poor ground game, it is a birdie hole only if both hands are on the wheel.

#13-  The story i heard is that the Golf coach from 50 years ago had the original bunker on the left taken out and trees planted (never knew a golf coach had that much power).  Then in the late 90's/early 00's renovation Hills attempted to restore the large bunker on the left.  Some criticize this hole as being week, i definitely don't, when pin is back right i can make 5 or 6 with the best of them.  

Matt- There is about 3 or 4 holes on the front that need reflective mirrors on the tee box, so you don't hit into group ahead.  My bet is a certain organization frowns upon them.  Speaking of safety it is a no brainer.  Your thoughts?

[Matt Bielawa]

They used to have one of the periscopes on the 2nd tee, but now it's gone.  I always thought it wasn't terribly useful in the first place, so I suppose that's fine.  A bell or something when you clear your second shot wouldn't be a terrible idea though.  I never know when it's safe to tee off there.  Always a best guess.  That's probably the only spot where I really worry.  #4 maybe....I had a ranger tell me not to hit earlier this summer, so I suppose you could make a case for that.  I've never really felt that unsure on #7.  By then, you should have a good feel for how far ahead/behind you are from the group in front of you. 

[Sean_A]

I forgot to add that the last pic I posted shows the rough issue around greens - very poor maintenance meld imo.  The entire course was like this last time I visited - very disappointed.  Bottom line, Michigan just needs someone who cares in charge.  The course is there, it just needs to be allowed to shine.  

The blind holes just need bells WHICH PEOPLE USE!  No need for anything more than that.  So far as trees go for protection, I am one who believes that seeing where trouble is suits me better than a tree screen - trees are 80% air, but block views very well.

Ciao  

[BCowan]

I would prefer mirror reflector much quieter, course i grew up on had them.  A certain society frowns on anything like a bell or mirror.  Since UofM doesn't have a range, they put a net to hit balls into behind the first tee.  That same group didn't like that, it got stolen/destroyed during football games so that ended that.  

Sean

   They have grown out native grass and have grown grass out on bunker grass faces.  Same guy is in charge of Radrick and UofM.  The greens just need to be regrassed, to much funkyness in them.  Same grass that is was on Scarlet.  UofM is in much better shape in last year excluding greens that just need a newer strain of grass IMO.   I dislike most trees on courses and I am starting to really not like parklands courses the older i get.  More or less also just prefer arch original intent with trees.  Trees have been over used for protection and ones around greens prevent wind patterns.  The ones on the right of #6 are a really solid species.  If you are in the ones on the right you have shank/block a tee shot.  If the hole was shortened from middle up to laddies almost everyone would be past those trees on the right with a blocked tee shot.  the rough issue around greens - very poor maintenance meld-- Please elaborate..  For example Merion i believe champions having different grasses in their rough.  Are you for more uniformity?  The biggest thing UofM needs to improve is drainage, when they get 1 inch of rain it's walking only and that hurts them with limited access and it being difficult to walk for 50+ year olds.  

We should do a hole battle with Scarlet and UofM.....We could do pre JN changes

[Mark McKeever]

Why do I think #8 at Gulph Mills GC when I see this?  I know the green is different, but it has a very similar vibe.

Mark

[BCowan]

(The original green size was believed to be around 10,000 sqft, I'm told it's 5,500 sqft)

You can see the new section of the reclaimed green



you can see the tree removal on the left side of the hole



No more trees behind the green

[Mark Bourgeois]

Hopefully the tree removal makes it easier to get in and out of this parking lot.

[Ryan Taylor]

U of M looks awsome with the high native grass and grown out bunker faces. However, I wish they would cut back 10-15 yards of rough left and short of #6 green. Lay-up is a no brainer for me as the risk is not worth the reward as it is laid out today.

How about a picture of the par 3 5th hole? Great hole that shows off MacKenzie's camouflage principles. (bunker from #6 adding depth and visual intimidation) Ann Arbor (U of M) is blessed with great land and golf courses - U of M & Radrick.

[BCowan]

pre changes



post changes

[Jeff Bergeron]

Ben, please get the chainsaw out! Now!

[Joe Bausch]

How the 6th hole looks now (temporarily the 11th hole for the 2016 golf season):


http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/albums/UMichGC/pages/page_50.html

[MCirba]

The 6th hole at UofM is an astounding, audacious golf hole with a wild roller-coaster green.   

The term all-world was used in previous posts and I'd agree.   I think it's as good as anything at Crystal Downs, frankly.

[Sean_A]

The 6th may well be the highpoint of the course, but I would argue the 12th is its measure as a par 3 and the 3rd as a par 5.  The course has a lot of very high class holes and many which are very good, such as the 2nd, 10th, 11th and 14th. 

I am still quite astounded that Doak offered a 3 in the CG and think he missed the boat by a wide, very wide margin on this course. Even in its decrepit state the course is every bit as good as many courses he gives a 6. That said, even if everything was done right (and that would mean a ton more trees ripped out) with the current marathon reno, I am not sure it could achieve a 7.   


Ciao

[BCowan]

I am not sure it could achieve a 7

S,

   It already is a 7 imo, due mainly to soft conditions and the native which isn't native which i deducted points this year.  #2, #3, #6, #7, #12, #13, #14, and #15 are extremely good/great holes, with #15 and #3 my favorites.  Please tell me of a US course that is a 7 or higher that has that many high quality holes?  The 18th is an issue which has been addressed.  The other holes are good/solid.   

[Sean_A]

B


I could be wrong as I would have to see the expanded greens.  2-14 the course is extremely strong.  Its a shame about 18 and the back n' forth nature of 15-17.  Looking at another of your favourites..I don't believe Franklin Hills has the bones of Michigan, the greens of Michigan nor does it have as many top class holes, but because Franklin is presented better I think it to be a step up from Michigan.  Still, I would only give Franklin as I wasn't all that impressed due to a lack of really top holes (only 1 and 14 are real standouts for me) 6.  To be fair though, 6 is good enough. 


Ciao

[BCowan]

S,

    Back and forth routing doesn't bother me at all, they are completely different holes.  Especially given limited acreage like most golden age courses, I welcome it. 

    Franklin Hills is kept as soft as UofM and the greens speeds arms race is alive and well there, which give it's deductions IMO, but that is how members want it.  The amount of world class holes is not just my opinion, Ran was blown away by his visit there earlier this summer.  Franklin (2, 9, 13, and 14 are WC)  3, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 18 are really great holes.  #7 and #17 are the only 2 holes that need attention, along with some tree removal. 

   I also don't agree with Tom's limiting the amount of 7's, 8's, and 9's in his assessments. 

[Sean_A]

Ben


Okay, we will always disagree with this idea of so many courses having 3-5 all world holes.  I don't buy that in the least.  When I say 1 & 14 are outstanding I mean all Michigan candidates...not all world.  I haven't seen enough world class courses in differing settings to make a claim such as all-world.  To me, if a course had 3-5 all world holes it would probably be a shoe in 9.


Ciao

[BCowan]

Sean,

   To be a world class hole IMO would mean I would drive 5 hours to play a course with 1 world class hole.  If the course has 4 WC holes I'd drive from California to play Franklin, despite soft conditions.  A course like Pinehurst #2, given a 10 by Doak has 16 great holes, and 2 WC holes (#3 and #9) IMO.  It is a 8.6 for me due to more tree removal needed.  Franklin is around a 8.3 in its current form.  Soft conditions, too fast of greens, #7 and #17, and tree removal prevent it from being a 9+ IMO.  So we can agree to disagree, but I laid my cards out to explain my reasoning.  At least you are fond of OLCC and Old Town. 

   I really would love to know all the courses IYO that are 7 and higher, for I have to make out a Christmas in July list for next year?!?!?