Milwaukee Area - one round, what do you choose?

[Rob_Waldron]

I have to concur with Mr. Hurricane Milwaukee CC is a classic gem! The tree work by Mr. Doak several years ago created some spectacular vistas. A very traditional parkland course with wonderful topo, lightening fast greens and maintained in outstanding condition. What is not to like. If you have access, do not miss the opportunity to experience MCC. That being said I loved the Raynor templates at Blue Mound and enjoyed the challenges presented by the modern Erin Hills. I have not visited Lawsonia, so I am not able to comment.   

[Phil McDade]

Jason:

That Cantalay succumed to pressure seems entirely plausible; I'm not sure how one can tell he was "overwhelmed" by the options available there. EH is if nothing else an option-filled course, and he'd acquitted himself pretty well in figuring out those options through the week-long play of the Amateur and 14 holes of the final round of the final match.

I believe Davis will set up 15 to be temptably driveable by a decent number of players during one round at the 2017 US Open.

So, about the Lawsonia-EH debate. If Lawsonia is prone to a number of doglegs to the right (a common criticism, one I think a bit unfair, but I can see where it comes from), can't one make a similar criticism about what I'd call the the "up-down-up" nature of EH? The criticism implied in the Lawsonia comment is one of sameness, not the individual merits of each hole (several of which I think are among the best at Lawsonia, and at least two of which -- 16 and 17 -- are among its more under-rated holes).

Isn't there a sameness to how many of the holes play at EH? Taking the 4 par 3s out of this discussion, EH has by my count 9 of its remaining 14 holes that feature either this up-down-up design -- tee shot from an elevated tee, to a fairway below, to an approach shot at an elevated green -- or a significantly uphill approach shot. You see this on 3, 4, arguably 5, 7, arguably 8 (if you hit that speed slot; that's a severely uphill approach from down there); 10 kind of (not an elevated tee shot, but certainly an uphill approach), 11, 14 (similar to 10), and 15.

While I think EH is a US Open-worthy course, the preponderance of uphill approach shots seems to be at odds with its fast-and-firm maintenance practices -- it's a course with a really linksy feel to it demanding a lot of aerial approaches. It seems incongruous in that respect.

[Terry Lavin]

I like Erin Hills for many reasons but the USGA loves it because it's a virtually treeless aerial attack golf course that looks like a links and can be stretched or shrunk in innumerable ways depending upon conditions.

[Jason Thurman]

I believe Davis will set up 15 to be temptably driveable by a decent number of players during one round at the 2017 US Open.

Phil, doesn't the fact that Davis will have to set it up to be driveable effectively prove that the hole isn't intended to be driveable under normal playing conditions?

As for Lawsonia's dogleg-right criticism, I agree that it's a bit misleading. While most of the hole corridors move left to right, the ideal shot shape and trajectory on approaches varies quite a bit.

As for the up-down-up at Erin Hills, your own evaluation of its accuracy has enough caveats to show the folly of that complaint. Also, if we're comparing Erin Hills with Lawsonia, we should probably count the number of uphill approaches on the latter course. I count 10 holes with uphill approaches or approach shots with significant upslopes fronting the green. If someone is going to complain that Erin Hills has too many upslopes leading to its greensites and thus stifles the ground game, then surely the same complaint applies to Lawsonia as well.

Personally, I find that both courses accommodate the ground game just fine while still requiring a variety of approach shots.

[Phil McDade]

I believe Davis will set up 15 to be temptably driveable by a decent number of players during one round at the 2017 US Open.

Phil, doesn't the fact that Davis will have to set it up to be driveable effectively prove that the hole isn't intended to be driveable under normal playing conditions?

As for the up-down-up at Erin Hills, your own evaluation of its accuracy has enough caveats to show the folly of that complaint. Also, if we're comparing Erin Hills with Lawsonia, we should probably count the number of uphill approaches on the latter course. I count 10 holes with uphill approaches or approach shots with significant upslopes fronting the green. If someone is going to complain that Erin Hills has too many upslopes leading to its greensites and thus stifles the ground game, then surely the same complaint applies to Lawsonia as well.

Personally, I find that both courses accommodate the ground game just fine while still requiring a variety of approach shots.

Well, normal playing conditions are a bit different at the two courses -- EH was designed, from the start, with the ambition of one day hosting a major, and preferably the US Open. Not so with Lawsonia. Most references I've seen to #15 at EH and its early incarnation suggest it's a par 4 that is viewed as potentially driveable under certain circumstances (and Davis will likely set up #4 to be driveable one day of the US Open as well, as he did at the US Am -- does that make the hole any less meritorious?).

If you're going to argue Erin Hills has as many uphill approaches as Lawsonia, then you and I will simply have to disagree. I would suggest there are about 5 or 6 at Lawsonia, including one of the par 3s (4, along with 9, 13, 15 and 16). EH has nearly twice that many if you include the two uphill par 3s (6 and 16).

Besides, the comparison wasn't between the two courses and their uphill shots; it was the sameness of certain hole types (dogleg right holes vs. up-down-up holes) at the two courses. I'd argue the game is quite aerial at EH, despite its links-like conditioning and design.

[Mike Treitler]

Milwaukee country club hands down. If you have a chance to play there do not pass it up.  Lawsonia would definitely be next on that list but Milwaukee is the best.

Erin hills is fun but there are not many stand out holes imo.

I played blue mound yesterday and while the greens were a joy the course was fairly underwhelming from tee to green.  I am actually about to post a write up about my experience at blue mound.

[Jason Thurman]

Well, normal playing conditions are a bit different at the two courses -- EH was designed, from the start, with the ambition of one day hosting a major, and preferably the US Open. Not so with Lawsonia. Most references I've seen to #15 at EH and its early incarnation suggest it's a par 4 that is viewed as potentially driveable under certain circumstances (and Davis will likely set up #4 to be driveable one day of the US Open as well, as he did at the US Am -- does that make the hole any less meritorious?).

If you're going to argue Erin Hills has as many uphill approaches as Lawsonia, then you and I will simply have to disagree. I would suggest there are about 5 or 6 at Lawsonia, including one of the par 3s (4, along with 9, 13, 15 and 16). EH has nearly twice that many if you include the two uphill par 3s (6 and 16).

Phil, part of the reason that I'm pushing you on your evaluation of 15 is that I believe the drive-and-pitch hole is a dying breed that has been phased out of the game in favor of 440+ yard "good, tough holes" with the occasional @MikeDavis #DrivablePar4! thrown in for the mouth-breathers who watch tournament golf and want to see players drive greens. It was unfortunate to see what Mike Davis did with the drive-and-pitch 3rd at Pinehurst back in June, and even more frustrating to see 13 bastardized in the same manner. Those are great holes that test short wedge approaches, understanding of angles, and strategy and thus form part of the comprehensive test presented by No. 2. I don't believe Donald Ross intended for either hole to be drivable, but I sense an unfortunate stigma against 370-ish yard short-but-not-drivable holes developing among tournament organizers. That same stigma seems to have made its way to this forum, where virtually any par 4 of less than 320 yards is lauded while a 370 yard hole with a dicey approach can be criticized because, as you said a few posts ago, "its terrain is so rugged and penal that I don't think it plays as envisioned -- a driveable par 4."

What I'm really challenging you to do is to present some real evidence that the hole is or is intended to be drivable. To me, it seems like a pretty egregious mistake for a group of seasoned architects and students of architecture to attempt to build a drivable par 4 and accidentally make it 60 yards too long for all but the absolute longest hitters in the world to reach while also building a green that won't accept a run-up shot from a driver.

What facets of the hole make you think it was intended to be drivable? As I've pointed out, the green complex is incongruous with a drivable par 4, as is the hole's overall length. The heavily bunkered and very wide landing area in the fairway suggests to me that the architects wanted a hole that presented many options off the tee, but that those options would be used to set up the most advantageous location and angle for an approach shot. Those options make the hole unique and, I think, outstanding as a drive-and-pitch hole. I don't, however, see the option of driving the green as a viable one on that hole, and never have. Did anyone in the elite field that played the course in 2011 drive the green from the back tees? Or is it a hole that only becomes drivable when bastardized by Mike Davis, a la the 3rd and 13th at Pinehurst No. 2? I think it's quite clear that the 15th at Erin Hills is no more drivable than the 3rd at Lawsonia, nor is it intended to be.

[Phil McDade]

Jason:

Perhaps I need work on my semantics; I had always assumed that par 4s described as "driveable" had other options on how to play them --otherwise they'd be called par 3s. Just because I described a hole as "driveable," and that the course designers intended it to be driveable, doesn't necessarily mean that that's the only way to play it, or even the preferred way to play it.

Where did I get the impression the 15th was intended to be driveable? Oh, I don't know -- the people running the course, and astute GCA contributors who have played it:

-- This from the Erin Hills website: http://www.erinhills.com/erin_hills_golf_hole_by_hole_2.aspx ("The 15th presents the player several options – to lay up short of all the bunkers, to place the tee shot in the middle of the bunkers or to have a go at the green itself.")

-- One of the earliest course reviews of EH on GCA, from Dan Moore in 2007, who has probably studied EH more than anyone on the board:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29760.0/ ("Hole #15 338 yd par 4 (Green) With a centerline bunker prominently in play this is the most strategic hole on the course. Does the big banger go for the green or lay back for a wedge.")

-- From Paul Richards' review in 2007: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29130.0.html (#15 – (345) This is reminiscent of #14 at Bandon Trails or #17 at Crystal Downs or a handful of other holes that Bradley Klein once described as “drive-able par fours that are un-hittable in two shots.”)

-- Dan Moore again, in 2009, after significant changes in the course: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40451.0/ ("One can imagine this hole being played as a driveable par 4 on the back nine on Sunday.    Bunkers on the left have been expanded in size with several new bunkers also added.  The green was modified with a large ridge in the center of the green being softened.  Still a difficult green.")

-- Jack Senior went for the green in his semi-final match against Kraft at 15 at the 2011 US Am; I was actually there to see that one.

I think going for that green off the tee is nuts, and indicated as such the first time I'd seen the course: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45966.0.html But just because I don't think it's wise to play that hole as "driveable" doesn't mean others should share that view, or that it wasn't one way the designers envisioned that hole being played.

[Mike Treitler]

In regards to Lawsonia conditions....

I played Lawsonia in late June and the conditions on both courses were IMMACULATE.   Felt like playing a private club.   

[Jason Thurman]

Jason:

Perhaps I need work on my semantics; I had always assumed that par 4s described as "driveable" had other options on how to play them --otherwise they'd be called par 3s. Just because I described a hole as "driveable," and that the course designers intended it to be driveable, doesn't necessarily mean that that's the only way to play it, or even the preferred way to play it.

Sure, but doesn't one of those options have to be driving it onto the green? I don't think that's going to be an option from the back tees for even 3 players in the US Open in 2017.

Of course, one of the difficulties of discussing Erin Hills is its elasticity. Tees can be moved forward and backwards on every hole, and the course has also gone through enough renovation that we can be talking about a single hole and still not be comparing apples to apples. The hole may well have been drivable in 2007 when it was 30 yards shorter. Of course, that version of the hole is no more likely to be played today or in the 2017 US Open than the Dell hole. The hole is also drivable if Mike Davis sets it up from the 290 tee, but that doesn't mean it's designed as a drivable par 4 any more than the 3rd at Pinehurst, the 13th at Pinehurst, the 4th at Erin Hills, or the 14th at Torrey Pines.

I was there for Jack Senior too. He didn't actually hit it on the green. It might be semantics, but a drivable hole seems to me like it should actually be, you know, drivable. And again, applying that hashtag-quality label to the 15th at Erin Hills obscures what it really is - a fantastic drive-and-pitch par 4 with a ton of viable options off the tee. If you want to include "flailing wildly at a ball with delusional aspirations of driving it on the green resulting in a bomb-and-gouge approach" among those options, I'll accept it. But no one will drive it on the green from the 370 tees in the 2017 US Open, because the hole isn't drivable unless played from a much shorter tee.

[Mike Hendren]

Greetings Zach!

No wrong answer here.  I've played all but Milwaukee.  I tend to select by architect these days.  Tough to skip on Alison's work as there is such little of it stateside.   Blue Mound is a studio of Raynor's ability to build fun and fascinating greens, creating something out of nothing.  Lawsonia is simply sublime - a great example where the individual holes and sum total are equally worthy.  Erin Hills isn't my cup of tea but it's must see architecture and will be an excellent challenge to your solid game (assuming you haven't been working too hard making the capital markets!).

Please report back.  Hope you're well.

Mike

[Jeff Shelman]

I'm going to try to be practical here.

He's going to a wedding in Milwaukee. Hopefully that means he'll be coming off of a long night with some beverages and maybe even some shenanigans. Plus he has to drive back to O'Hare afterwards.

That combination totally takes Lawsonia and Erin Hills out of the equation. With Milwaukee CC and Blue Mound you have great location and a much better chance for a round of less than 4 hours.

I haven't played Milwaukee, but the photos look great. I like Blue Mound a lot.

Keep it simple and enjoy a classic, private course.

[Jud_T]

Zack,

For my game Lawsonia.  For yours- Milwaukee or EH.  Architecturally I'd say Lawsonia.  Also fall is the ideal time to see Lawsonia.

[Phil McDade]

Milwaukee in its current incarnation isn't really a testament to Colt/Alison presentation. 
[/quote]

Jud:

How so? Curious your thoughts.....

[Jud_T]

 

[Andy Troeger]

Jud,

Have you been to Milwaukee recently? There was a redo (Doak?) before I played it a few years ago and the course I saw did not resemble the issues you are describing.

[Tim Lewis]

Phil,

Caveat- I only walked the course.  While surely a fine test on a good piece of property, for the purist it's in need of a bit of a facelift.  The mowing lines aren't appropriate, there are many bunkers which are not original or have morphed into something different over time, there's original green area that can be recaptured and some of the short 4's have been toughened up with silly trees to protect par.  It's really an ideal candidate for a Master Plan from a Frank Pont et. al., although I fear the membership might not go along with some of his suggestions for fear of losing a point or two of hard earned rating and slope in the process...

I feel the need to comment here, as I currently work on the grounds crew at MCC. Your description of the course is completely out of date and could not be further from the truth. In my opinion the course is presented in a manner that is leaps and bounds ahead of any other course in the area, and far better than the large majority of courses in the US. Mowing lines are currently exactly were they should be, with the widest fairways in the area, and the only parkland course that I know of having short grass leading all the way into just about all the fairway bunkers. As far as bunkering goes, just about all of them were redone by Doak, and I think you would be surprised to know that the green side bunkering on all but two holes is original Alison. All the putting surfaces have been recaptured to their original dimensions, and play firmer and faster than anything else in the state. Trees are also no longer a problem, as they have been extensively thinned out over the years, and the course offers more sweeping views and vistas than any other parkland course I have ever played. Also, as far as I know the membership was quite supportive over the restoration process. I think you need to revisit the course some time, as I have never played a course that is presented in a better matter than MCC.

[Jud_T]

Phil, Andy, Tim,

Please see my PM...

[Phil McDade]

Phil, Andy, Tim,

Please see my PM...

Jud -- See your PM box (grab a cup of coffee first )

[J_ Crisham]

Phil,

Caveat- I only walked the course.  While surely a fine test on a good piece of property, for the purist it's in need of a bit of a facelift.  The mowing lines aren't appropriate, there are many bunkers which are not original or have morphed into something different over time, there's original green area that can be recaptured and some of the short 4's have been toughened up with silly trees to protect par.  It's really an ideal candidate for a Master Plan from a Frank Pont et. al., although I fear the membership might not go along with some of his suggestions for fear of losing a point or two of hard earned rating and slope in the process...

I feel the need to comment here, as I currently work on the grounds crew at MCC. Your description of the course is completely out of date and could not be further from the truth. In my opinion the course is presented in a manner that is leaps and bounds ahead of any other course in the area, and far better than the large majority of courses in the US. Mowing lines are currently exactly were they should be, with the widest fairways in the area, and the only parkland course that I know of having short grass leading all the way into just about all the fairway bunkers. As far as bunkering goes, just about all of them were redone by Doak, and I think you would be surprised to know that the green side bunkering on all but two holes is original Alison. All the putting surfaces have been recaptured to their original dimensions, and play firmer and faster than anything else in the state. Trees are also no longer a problem, as they have been extensively thinned out over the years, and the course offers more sweeping views and vistas than any other parkland course I have ever played. Also, as far as I know the membership was quite supportive over the restoration process. I think you need to revisit the course some time, as I have never played a course that is presented in a better matter than MCC.

My thoughts exactly- as good a course as I've played in the Midwest. Pass my best on to Skip - he's a prince of a guy. Hope to get him down to Beverly one of these years.

[Terry Lavin]

It's pretty hard to judge the extent of tree removal just from photographs. There are plenty of trees in the Milwaukee course review that look like they could be "sacrificed" but they may be out of play in many instances.

[Mike Treitler]

I don't know whether or not it represents the original design....i still have a lot of architectural ignorance.  However, I played it 3 years ago and thought it was absolutely awesome.   It doesn't get much better than Milwaukee CC IMHO.

[Phil McDade]

It's pretty hard to judge the extent of tree removal just from photographs. There are plenty of trees in the Milwaukee course review that look like they could be "sacrificed" but they may be out of play in many instances.

Terry:

When I walked it extensively during the UW Mid-AM in 2008 (I was there for 3 or 4 days, for about 8-10 hours each day), it was pretty evident considerable tree clearance had occurred (a maintenance area parking lot was full of felled trees). But, there were places on the course that definitely could have used more tree removal. My sense is that tree removal has been an on-going process at MCC, done selectively rather than wholesale ala Oakmont. And one can look at Ran's GCA profile linked by Pat and know that there are fewer trees when Ran visited (circa fall 2011?) than when I was there in 2008.

But I think one can argue it's still a heavily treed course, and Tim's argument that "trees are no longer a problem" would likely be met by some disagreement among folks here on GCA. I can post some pictures later.

An interesting thread here about some of the maintenance/renovation work done at MCC: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48393.0.html

[Ryan Taylor]

Another vote for MCC. I'm learning now through the OLCC thread that the bunkers are not representative of Alison's original philosophy. Nevertheless; the routing, strategic elements and walk in the park factors are overwhelmingly great. It doesn't get much better than MCC.

Runner up for me is Erin Hills. I thought Erin was the perfect contrast to MCC. A big, bold, new age golf course. What a fantastic piece of property. I think the high handicapper has a tough time critiquing Erin fairly and just dismisses it as poor golf course architecture.

[Phil McDade]

Runner up for me is Erin Hills. I thought Erin was the perfect contrast to MCC. A big, bold, new age golf course. What a fantastic piece of property. I think the high handicapper has a tough time critiquing Erin fairly and just dismisses it as poor golf course architecture.

Ryan:

I'm a high-handicapper, and I think EHills is a stern test of golf. It's meant to be a US Open golf course, and the addition of severely (in some cases) punishing bunkers in particular makes it worthy of the hard test that (in my view) a US Open ought to be. It has a bunch of holes of merit, and some of the really cooler and better holes in the state (#2 and 12, for my tastes).

But its routing is pretty dis-jointed; its opening hole and finishing hole(s) are a bit bland compared to what comes in between, and there is a certain up-down-up approach to many of the holes (tee shot from an elevated tee, to a fairway below, with an uphill approach shot into a green) that is a bit incongruous with a course wanting to be an inland links-like course. As Terry Lavin has noted, it's an aerial course on land maintained as links, which I find a bit odd.