[Mike Treitler]

So I had the chance to play Blue Mound yesterday and really enjoyed my experience there.  The course is in immaculate condition with firm and fast fairways and greens.  From what I saw from the outside the clubhouse looked stunningly beautiful.

As for the course... I enjoyed it and thought the greens were very cool.  It was like playing at a museum of sorts as the templates made every hole exciting to see what would come next.  The layout was very subtle with the stretch from 7-9 being the standout set of holes.

With that said, with the hype and the lofty ranking (126 on golfweek top classic), I couldn't help but being slightly disappointed in what I saw from tee to green.   There was not a single hole where I felt intimidated off the tee and there was basically no trouble in play.

I feel like the course is not a suitable test for the scratch player in this day and age as it never really makes you think and the tee shots are all simple.  

I will admit that I am 29 years old and still learning the subtleties of golf course architecture so for those that rave about blue mound I would love to hear your thoughts.  I found milwaukee country club to be a far more interesting golf course.  I tend to gravitate to more dramatic course designs and I'm still learning to appreciate more subtle features.

Anyways, i still really enjoyed the course and the greens are top notch.  I was just a bit underwhelmed by what I saw from tee to green.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Cue the lynch mob.......

No seriously.  In my experience, players evaluate a course from either play or aesthetic purposes.  If you are a scratch player, then many of the old bunkers and what not really won't affect your play, and you probably tend to rate a course based on how it plays, not its history or aesthetic appeal.

So, don't feel guilty about ranking a course based on your own criteria.  Now, you might not fit in around here......but don't let that bother you.....I never have.

That said, I am not sure it was Raynor's intent to ever really intimidate off the tee, was it?  Even the carry bunkers usually had a way around....now you just fly way over.

[J_ Crisham]

Mike, Blue Mound is a very good golf course but it's not Milwaukee CC . The terrain is not as dramatic . One can debate how easy it is by simply looking at how it resisted par during the US MidAm a few years ago. As you may or may not remember it was the 2nd course . After several plays you might have a different view. As far as the clubhouse goes - it's very much in the class of Winged Foot- very old world.

[Bill Satterfield]

I played there in May and very much enjoyed it.  The terrain isn't as engaging as Shoreacres or even close to Yale, but the routing was nice for what was available.  I thought #2 green was nothing short of spectacular and felt the Biarritz 3rd hole was well done.  I agree that the course isn't very difficult with the most intimidating hole probably being the par four 12th.  I love Raynor and Macdonald designs and was happy I played there but in comparison to their other designs it isn't one of their elite offerings.

[Nigel Islam]

Mike, Blue Mound is a very good golf course but it's not Milwaukee CC . The terrain is not as dramatic . One can debate how easy it is by simply looking at how it resisted par during the US MidAm a few years ago. As you may or may not remember it was the 2nd course . After several plays you might have a different view. As far as the clubhouse goes - it's very much in the class of Winged Foot- very old world.

Slight correction as it was the second course for the stroke play portion of the actual US Amateur. I think you have to realize that the lofty ranking is obtained by ranking against other similar courses. The 126th course on the modern list probably would be more challenging for you.

[RJ_Daley]

No time now to look up scores at the past Wis State Am held there some years ago, or the 2nd course of US am.  But, I think it held up pretty well.  It has one of the best template set of par 3s I've played among the Raynor courses I have enjoyed.  The par 5s are bland and on relatively flat corridors.  Most of the fun and challenge is on the approaches and finding the pins on the greens.  As noted, for the scratch player,  bunkers are generally not worrisome in FWs.  The 8th longish par 4 with punch bowl green is outstanding, IMHO.  Hogsback has plenty of room to place and play off the tee, as do most all the other 4s and 5s.  The times I played there, the tendency was for a bit of overwatered soft presentation.  I don't know if that was a general or luck of the maintenance routine at those times.  What did you shoot and from what distance?

Unquestionably, MCC is the sterner test of golf.

[Mike Treitler]

All great points guys and appreciate the commentary.   I have played Shore Acres and would agree that Blue Mound doesn't quite compare.  I did like Blue Mound though so a lot of the "disappointment" was basically just due to lofty expectations.   I think its a nice track that I would love to play any time any day.  

#2 green was awesome for sure.   On the Biarritz hole I found it interesting that the first part of the biarritz was fairway and not green.  Is that typical?  I know the Shore Acres biarritz is all green.

[Mike Treitler]

We played the tips and I shot 76.   41-35 but most of that came on 7 and 8 where I went triple bogey, double bogey.  I hit it over the green on 7 and that was definitely a nightmare with a back pin.   

8 is a fantastic and very challenging par 4.  I think that was undoubtedly the best hole on the course with a unique green complex.

I'm a 1.6 handicap.. it was quite windy as well.   I wouldn't say its a simple course by any means but its not championship caliber in terms of difficulty.   Courses that are ranked similar like Beverly, Skokie, Milwaukee etc... were tougher IMO.

[Terry Lavin]

I suppose it just comes down to the one standard that you included most prominently in your analysis of the course: resistance to par.  There are some who think this is a highly overvalued criterion.  Others prize it greatly.  I find myself in the middle of these two extremes.  I can get a little bored if a course is really easy and can get turned off if a course is just too damned hard.  For the courses on the "easy" side of the ledger, architectural niceties like template interpretation can turn an easy round into a fun and intriguing round.  I would guess that if you played and compared a number of Raynor courses that your second trip to Blue Mound might be more rewarding.

[Nigel Islam]

Mike, I think most of the current biarritz holes are not maintained as full green. There actually has been more of push in recent years to doing so, but a lot of them were never intended to be all green.  Its labor intensive since the greens are huge. I think TPC Greenbrier uses the front part of the green at least once during their tour event on the biarritz though.

Also, I think Shoreacres is actually ranked almost a 100 spots higher than Blue Mound on the ranking you referred to. Your analysis tends to support the rankings of the aforementioned courses.

[Mike Treitler]

Thanks Nigel, thats interesting.  I was always under the impression it was the full green.   

Yeah I know Shore Acres is ranked WAY higher.   The courses more in the realm of  Blue Mound's ranking are Skokie and Beverly although those are ranked about 25 spots higher at least as well. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Why wouldn't SA be ranked higher?  Same basic holes on a much more dramatic site.

[Terry Lavin]

Why wouldn't SA be ranked higher?  Same basic holes on a much more dramatic site.

I'm playing Shoreacres in two days and am anxious to see the current stage of their ongoing "restoration" of the golf course.  I'm told that the fairways have gotten a lot wider and that a bunch of trees have been cut down.  That's not all that novel or intriguing, but the most interesting change is with the maintenance meld around the greens, as they've started cutting down the rough and extending short grass around every green and they're keeping the green areas F&F at all times.  Speeding up the turf on and around the green adds a variety of shots to the player's repertoire on courses like this, but it also adds difficulty (read: resistance to par).  Chicago Golf Club has a very similar maintenance meld these days.

[Phil McDade]

Mike:

I don't think your review is too much off the mark -- you used the term "museum," and that was one of my first reactions seeing Blue Mound a few years ago. My sense is that it's a great member's course, but for the very low handicap players such as yourself, its challenges -- particularly tee to green -- can be minimal if one keeps the ball on the fairway. BM doesn't offer much in the way of rambunctious terrain -- in fact it's quite flat with a few exceptions -- and you're likely to encounter a level lie in most fairways. There are a few holes were Raynor asks the golfer to move his ball one way or another off the tee -- but not that many.

That course really defends itself at the greens, which are among (the best?) the top tier set in the state. But Milwaukee CC is the tougher course -- it's just a brawnier layout, longer by some 300 yards (BM has very little room to expand beyond its 6,700 yards), with some very tough bunkers that come into play, some up-and-down terrain, and a very challenging set of greens.

[Michael George]

I suppose it just comes down to the one standard that you included most prominently in your analysis of the course: resistance to par.  There are some who think this is a highly overvalued criterion.  Others prize it greatly.  I find myself in the middle of these two extremes.  I can get a little bored if a course is really easy and can get turned off if a course is just too damned hard.  For the courses on the "easy" side of the ledger, architectural niceties like template interpretation can turn an easy round into a fun and intriguing round.  I would guess that if you played and compared a number of Raynor courses that your second trip to Blue Mound might be more rewarding.

Terry - you hit the head on this one.  It really depends on what you are looking for.

If you are a scratch player and are asking if it is a stern test of golf that punishes bad shots, Blue Mound is not your course.  As with all Raynor courses, the greenside bunkers are the course's protection...and the greens are so large that the good player usually can navigate them.  

On the other hand, Blue Mound is a course that is wonderfully designed and presented for its membership.  As I played it, I found myself repeatedly saying that this would be a great course to be a member, as it is enjoyable (although not a stern test) for the lower handicapper, like myself, yet can be played by the higher handicapper and still thoroughly enjoyed.  In fact, an older gentleman playing with us liked Blue Mound better than every course on our Wisconsin trip (Erin Hills and the Kohler courses).  

I think it is deserving its ranking of 126 GW Classic (in fact, I think it is closer to top 100 Classic).  While Mike Treitler mentions 6-9 (for good reason), 11-13 are equally as good.  In fact, I think 13 may be the best Redan that I have played to date (which includes Pacific Dunes #17, Old Mac #12 and Camargo #15, among others).   On the downside, I will agree that the starting 1st and 10th are a little boring and the driving range/practice area needs work.  

95% of a golf club's membership are people that cannot break 80 and just want to enjoy their round, while still having interesting holes with fun shots (ie. like any putt on the great 2nd green or the long approach to the Punchbowl #8).  Blue Mound meets this criteria very well.  As I have said in the past, there is a place for penal, championship golf, but great member courses like Blue Mound should be more of the norm.

  

[Phil McDade]

No time now to look up scores at the past Wis State Am held there some years ago, or the 2nd course of US am.  But, I think it held up pretty well.  

BM played to an average of 71.647 -- to a par of 70 -- vs. 75.106 for Erin Hills (par of 72): http://www.usga.org/ChampEventScore.aspx?id=17179869326&year=2011&type=coursestats

[Mike Wagner]

So what did you shoot?

[Chris DeToro]

Sounds like it can hold up pretty well during tournament conditions

[J_ Crisham]

Sounds like it can hold up pretty well during tournament conditions

That was my original point- unfortunately when a player visits a club once they miss a tremendous amount. If you spend 12-14 minutes per hole you will miss a lot - unless you are a Brad Klein like golfer.

[Phil McDade]

Sounds like it can hold up pretty well during tournament conditions

I think when BM has its greens running at tournament condition, that's where that course can be puzzling to figure out. I didn't see any of the US Am qualifying there, but a year or so before that watched a good deal of the junior Western Open there, and those kids all hit it a ton. Yet when they got to the greens, it was: "Um, what do I do now?" If you haven't seen a Raynor set of greens (and the top-tier Raynor courses  -- Fishers, Carmargo, Shoreacres, Mid-Ocean -- aren't exactly easy to access), they can be pretty befuddling.

[Michael George]

If you put pins at Blue Mound in the corners, hanging over the deepest bunkers, you won't have a lot of birdies - you simply cannot go after those pin placements.   For instance, a pin in the back of #7 or left on #9 are simply impossible to go after.  The penalty of being in one of those bunkers to a short pin is a definite bogey or double bogey.  As I mentioned in my first post, the greenside bunkering is the defense for that course.

[Mike Treitler]

Are you asking what I shot?  If so I posted this yesterday... if not than disregard haha.

"We played the tips and I shot 76.   41-35 but most of that came on 7 and 8 where I went triple bogey, double bogey.  I hit it over the green on 7 and that was definitely a nightmare with a back pin.   

8 is a fantastic and very challenging par 4.  I think that was undoubtedly the best hole on the course with a unique green complex.

I'm a 1.6 handicap.. it was quite windy as well.   I wouldn't say its a simple course by any means but its not championship caliber in terms of difficulty.   Courses that are ranked similar like Beverly, Skokie, Milwaukee etc... were tougher IMO."

[Mike Wagner]

Thanks, Mike - sorry I didn't catch the earlier post.

I didn't ask to be a dick, but to touch on a broader discussion point.  BM is my favorite course I've played in WI.  I've played Erin Hills probably more than anyone ... and I love it too, but for different reasons.

It always touches a nerve with me when people deem courses too easy.  It's an underlying theme that has a ton of courses, and quite frankly, the game itself, in a mess.  A ton of courses built in the last X years are just too damn hard.  When architecturally brilliant courses like BM are discounted as being too easy, I get a laugh.  If the best in the world can shoot 60, who cares?

It's always interesting to me what people like / dislike when it comes to generally well regarded courses like BM.  Maybe the brilliance and difficulty is that it didn't seem to challenging, but kept you from even playing to your handicap .... a whole new twist in thinking about it?

[Mike Treitler]

Understandable... it all depends on what you look for in a golf course.   I tend to enjoy more "drama" from tee to green... a layout that makes you sweat every shot.   For example, a course like the Kingsley Club... you cannot afford to let your guard down at all.

We did have a guy in my group who is a 1.8 shoot a 72.   I think it probably does do a great job protecting against par as the greens are tricky.  However, I would imagine shooting in the low to mid 70's would be a regular thing out there for solid players.   

The number one course on my top 40 played list is Turnberry in Scotland... I shot a 92 haha.  I am a sucker for courses that beat me up as I guess they gain my respect. 

I completely understand your viewpoint though and definitely still enjoyed my time at Blue Mound. 

[Mike Wagner]

Thanks, Mike - I get what you're saying.  That's the beauty, different courses for all different tastes..

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()