Cog Hill #4

[cary lichtenstein]

I was reading the top 25 thread and noticed it put Cog Hill #4 as 19th. I thought this was important enough to start a separate thread.


Wow, why? I lived on the far north side in Highland Park, worked in the city, yet I drove out to Cog Hill 3 times per year and everytime I played played there, I just loved it, never once leaving but thrilled at my experience.


I loved the elevation changes, the shot placement requirements, the trees, the tremendous variety, the routing, the shapes of the greens, deep sand traps.


I always thought it was a top 50 course or better not in Illinois, but in the US.


So, please explain to me why I have over rated it so much? I've asked the question in reverse about Seminole, what did I miss and why is is rated so highly?

[Ian Mackenzie]

Cary,


Fair question. As a Chicago city resident who also made the drive to Lemont many time s a yearn in the 80's and early 90's to play Dubsdread (Cog Hill #4), I think it's a combo of the following:


1. Almost all the courses on Terry's list have undergone successful restorations by well-regarded architects and have climbed in stature.
2. Sadly, the renovation done to #4 by Rees Jones in an attempt to land a US Open was not well received and the course was widely panned publicly by tour pros like Phil Mickelson.


What do you think?

[J_ Crisham]

Cary,


Fair question. As a Chicago city resident who also made the drive to Lemont many time s a yearn in the 80's and early 90's to play Dubsdread (Cog Hill #4), I think it's a combo of the following:


1. Almost all the courses on Terry's list have undergone successful restorations by well-regarded architects and have climbed in stature.
2. Sadly, the renovation done to #4 by Rees Jones in an attempt to land a US Open was not well received and the course was widely panned publicly by tour pros like Phil Mickelson.


What do you think?

That pretty much sums it up- what has been lost will sadly probably never be reclaimed. My hope is that at some point the Jemsek family has the ability / vision to bring in a different architect to turn it around. I would submit that Ravisloe for a recreational golfer is much more interesting, affordable, and enjoyable . Simple decision IMO .

[Terry Lavin]

I agree with these assessments.

[Brian Hilko]

The big thing i feel is Rees ruined the par 3s. I have had 5 rounds post renovation in calm conditions and hit similiar shots to all the par threes. 6 just feels so bland to me compared to the original green. 6 used to be such a stand out par three. I still enjoy a round on dubs but would never want to play there on a regular basis. I rather play shepards crook, highlands of elgin,  and ravisloe. They are all better values and have the fun factor. I also agree that the majority of renovations and restorations have shuffled dubs down the list.

[Nigel Islam]

I've never played Dubsdread, but I was wondering where it would rank on the list (approximately) , if at all in its pre renovation days? Tough question, but I think it is an interesting one.

[Brian Hilko]

The new green fits in with the new course but does not stand out. The old green stood out.

[Andrew Buck]

The renovation really has made it too extreme, IMO, for all but the elite player.  While it's not impossible for a scratch golfer to get around in the mid-70's, it's a lot of work in a non fun environment, and just brutal for the 15 handicap. 

The driving zones are severely pinched with extremely deep bunkers that are hard to recover from, meaning the smart play is often to lay back leaving mid-irons into elevated greens surrounded by deep bunkers.  The conditioning has always been on par with most private courses in the area, but they've really taken some good terrain and made it too challenging for anyone other than the elite player.  In that regard, it's such a shame that all that money was spent, and now they don't even host the players that could technically play it. 

Personally, I'll pick 3 - 4 public courses in the area to play ahead of Dubsdread even if the money was the same. 

[Jud_T]

It really is a shame because it used to be a challenge that was doable for many average to above average players.  Now, as mentioned, there's a sameness to the greens and zero fun factor.  The poster child for why chasing difficulty and tournaments is a dangerous game...

[cary lichtenstein]

I left Chicago in 1998. When did Rees do the redo? I can see from the photo how different it looks. Too bad.

[Andrew Buck]

I left Chicago in 1998. When did Rees do the redo? I can see from the photo how different it looks. Too bad.

That picture of 6 might be the green most receptive to run up a shot on the whole course, and it's a 7 yard opening from 200+.  That seems to be about average as far as artificially elevating greens, as many are even more dramatic.

[cary lichtenstein]

I just looked at the video of each hole, looks like every sand trap was more or less the same. The charm seems to be gone, the quirky green are gone, the water hazards guarded by willow trees are gone, thanks guys

[Jon Heise]

Does anyone have a good picture tour of the PRE-RENO Dubs?

[SL_Solow]

The saddest part of the whole episode is that the Jemsek family is one of the great contributors to golf and particularly public golf in the country.  Frank undertook the renovation in order to fulfill his father Joe's dream of having a US Open at Dubs.  He hired Rees because Rees was the Open Doctor.  He never got the Open and has the changed golf course you observed.  The Tour Pros, many of whom benefitted from the family's generosity, including hosting the tournament for free for many years, savaged the renovations which led in part to the loss of the tourney.  Nobody won in this saga although Cog Hill remains a thriving public venue.

[Howard Riefs]

I left Chicago in 1998. When did Rees do the redo? I can see from the photo how different it looks. Too bad.

2008


http://www.reesjonesinc.com/cog-hill-dubsdread/

[Jeff Tang]

I played the course both pre and post renovation. I think the biggest difference is the bunkering.  The post reno course is one carry the bunker to an elevated green shot after another. Challenging, but gets repetitive.

[Bill Seitz]

I still think that the bulk of the criticism from the tour players was a function of the conditions, which were not good the year after the renovations.  I know they all panned the actual work, but I think had they played it under the condition the course was in the very next year, they would have been a lot quieter.  That first year after the redo, the greens were pretty terrible.  You'd leave a crater on a 60 yard pitch shot.  And I was shocked out how many people out there, who have apparently played enough golf in their lives to find it worth it pay $155 for a round of golf, simply didn't repair their ball marks.  I can't imagine how bad they must have been in a tournament where people still wore metal spikes.  The sand was also way too soft that year (and maybe still is), but within a year, the greens had really taken hold and were in perfect shape. 

[Adam Clayman]

David is more right than he even knows. It wasn't just the loss of the Green Lake Silica, it was the tweaks the PGA Tour made to those greens just prior to the tour moving there from Butler. What was that '86, 87?

But I think the real answer to Cary's question has more to do with the culture of golf, back in the dark ages, equating most notions of quality with difficulty. 

In my version of reality, Dubs had it's moments of decent sequences, but the overall feeling, looking back, was that it was squeezed onto that property. Creating jarring transitions that barely ever coalesced.

Knowing that what Shelly says is true about the family, I remember when the decision to let the bad doctor operate, was made. It was well after the group think on gca.com would've sued Rees for malpractice, if they could. Especially after Sandpines. 

The question going forward is why not fix it now? And by fixing I mean looking at the whole property, scrapping most of the four courses, creating the best 36, 54, or 72 holes they can, while introducing a housing component opportunity. Surely the resiliency of the RE market makes this financially doable.

[Bill_McBride]

I played it once, probably 30 years ago.  I thought there were some good holes but what really got my attention was the shape of almost every green.   They were shaped like shamrocks, with lobes separated by punitively deep bunkers.   Each of those greens was actually four or five tiny greens within the big green.  I found it to be difficult and a little mind numbing.   But it does pass my memorability test as I can remember quite a few holes. 

[Mike Treitler]

When I was a Golf Pro I used to love to play Dubs.  I would tip it out and it was a blast... I was playing for free so I didn't mind getting beat up and loved trying to play the toughest courses in the world. 

Fast forward to now, I am a 1 handicap but I am no longer in the golf industry... that means that I have to actually pay to play now.   I decided to shell out the $150 to play dubs this year and I have NEVER regretted paying for a round more in my life.   It is just TOO difficult and I didn't really enjoy myself to be honest.  The bunkering is just borderline unfair and every shot requires the same high ball flight into the greens.   Its just brutal and doesn't require creativity... just length and a high ball flight.

Dubs would be a fun course to play in a matchplay tournament or if it was in the $50-$75 range.  However, that is definitely the last time I pay full price to play there.

It is still a course worthy of being on the top 25 but #19 is a good spot for it.