Wisconsin's University Ridge revisited w/ photos

[Phil McDade]

University Ridge, owned and operated by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has taken its share of hits here on GCA, notably in this thread:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,31479.0.html

In fairness, however, I think the course deserves a more thorough review via pictures. The course, designed by Robert Trent Jones Jr., opened 18 years ago on a rugged parcel of land about 10 miles west of Madison, WI. It annually makes the state’s top 10 listings of public courses, and is generally regarded as the best public-play option in the greater Madison area.

Within the past year, the university has lengthened the course by nearly 400 yards. A few holes have been tweaked, as well. What was originally a course that tipped out at 6,888 yards back in 1991 can now play to 7,259 yards. The expansion is a response to the longer hitters of today; the university also wants to lure major collegiate events to the course, including the men’s NCAA Div. 1 tournament.

Course details: From the tips, the course plays at 7,259 yards to a par of 72 (rating 74.9/slope 144). From the blues, it plays at 6,610 yards (72/139); from the whites at 6,053 yards (69.3/129). It features an unconventional front nine with three par 3s, 4s, and 5s, while the back nine features a more conventional mix of four par 4s and 2 par 3s and 5s. The two nines are also quite different in look; the front nine winds through what might be called upland prairie, while most of the back nine is carved through a heavily wooded area. The course is walkable, but it’s a rugged walk, with some significant ups and downs and several long walks between greens and tees. Yardages will be listed from both the black (way back) and blue tees.

No. 1 (396/376 yd par 4)
A somewhat benign-looking hole that nonetheless can be problematic as the first hole of the round. The tee shot is downhill to a fairway that gently turns to the right. Keep it on the fairway; significant trouble – thick brush to the left, high native grasses to the right – lurk not far from the fairway. Use whatever club off the tee that you can keep in the fairway; it’s a must here.


This bunker guards the right entrance of the green.


No. 2 (555/546 yd par 5)
Past criticism of URidge has focused on its routing, particularly its first four holes. It really starts here. The tee shot is downhill, with a carry over a dry creekbed (white rocks, middle of photo). The carry is not onerous if playing off the proper tees.


Here are the choices for the second shot. The green is just past the two-trunk tree with the yellow leaves, left-middle of picture (you can actually see the flag just to the right of the right tree trunk). It sits near a ravine, guarded by two pot bunkers on the upslope of the ravine. There is a small patch of fairway, to the left of the two-trunk tree and past the sloping area overgrown with native grass, for an aggressive layup. The safe layup area is to the right, down a section of fairway that dead-ends in the woods. It’s a long-iron/hybrid layup that feels like it should be a 7-iron, because of the looming jungle of trees. Lots of choices, and one reason that course play slows down considerably here.


Here’s the third shot for those taking the easy layup route. Long is likely bunkered. Short is in the ravine or in one of the two pot bunkers on the upslope of the ravine. Anything long-right or right of the shallow green is dead – the terrain falls off sharply into deep woods and junk about three yards to the back-right of the green.


Here’s the approach shot for a bold layup. The shot is much more downhill that it appears here. So, the choice is a punch-shot below the tree, or a wedge over the tree (more difficult in the summer, when the leaves are full). You have to be on the left side of this layup area to have a clear shot at the green.


A view of the second green, with the layup fairway at the top of the picture, the deep ravine, pot bunkers unseen, and traps hugging the left side of a long but narrow green. One reason that going for this smallish green in two is problematic.


No. 3 (242/174 yd par 3)
A hole that has been softened up in some ways since the course opened. The marshland area fronting the green has been cut down, allowing for better visuals into the green. Still, it’s a tough hole – the green is shallow, and anything left or long is dead. The tee shot shown here is from the blue tees; it’s more downhill than it appears.


The view from the way-back tee; at 242 yards, this strikes me as being quite demanding, perhaps borderline unfair, because the wide-but-shallow green wasn’t initially designed to hold a long, downhill tee shot .


No. 4 (467/398 yd par 4)
Probably the most criticized hole at URidge. Here’s the back tee shot; the trees on the left side of the fairway, angling to the right, are in a line so rigidly straight you’d think Gen.  Patton planted them. To the right of the fairway is a steep fall-off into wetlands and tall brush.


The view from the blue tees. The problem here, from my view, is that the fairway doesn’t really gather balls in any fashion unless you really can bust one into the very narrowest (not 20 yards wide) part of the fairway (close to 300 yards). The lay of the land (look at the broad sweep of the terrain left of the trees) tends to feed everything toward the right and the steep fall-off, forcing the uncertain golfer to take a line at the trees.


Here is position A, which still leaves a pretty tough, uphill shot to a hidden green with deep bunkers lurking right.


Here’s what contributes to the pace-of-play problems. Ten yards right of the fairway, and this is your shot into the green. Another yard to the right, and your ball probably can’t be found.


Ten yards left of the fairway, 150 yards out. Nice, huh?


The women’s tee on No. 4; maybe the worst women’s tee I’ve ever seen.


If you choose to play conservatively off the tee, and then with a second shot as well, you could be left with this approach into the green from the right side of the fairway.


No. 5 (198/167 par 3)
A solid par 3, with a tee shot over a ravine to a green site benched into a small hill. It’s the only par 3 of the five on the course that does not play significantly downhill.


No. 6 (623/570 yd par 5)
A long slog of a hole that almost always plays back into the prevailing wind. A nice cape-like drive over a pond; this is from the way-back tee.


From 300+ yards out; note the depth of the looming greenside bunker left.


A closer look at the approach, and a design technique that Jones employed frequently at URidge – deep bunkering or swales left of the green, with built-up mounds containing bunkers right of the green. I found examples of this on a third of the holes on the course.


The deep greenside bunker, and the elaborate sculpting of the ground leading up to it. This reminded me of the half-pipe at nearby Tyrol Basin, the area’s only winter ski hill.


No. 7 (429/379 yd par 4)
The greensite for the 7th, a gently dogleg left of modest length. Note again the high mounding with traps right, and the fall-off left of the green.


No. 8 (207/162 yard par 3)
One of two drop-shot par 3s on the course. This is from the back of the green; the way-back tee is at the top of the hill, just in front of the tree with the brown leaves.


No. 9 (587/554 yd par 5)
A solid closing hole for the front nine that doglegs left and uphill. This is the new tee, creating a true chute-like effect for the tee shot.


The aggressive player going for the green in two must carry a ridge fronting the greensite. The green, which sits up on a shelf, lies below the white tent.


A look back at the 9th fairway; the 1st fairway is to the right. One reason I like this hole is that the aggressive player must pull off a very good shot to get home in two, yet the player who lays up must still execute a solid third shot – an uphill pitch to an angled, peanut-shaped green with a large trap right.


Back nine to follow soon.

[Keith Buntrock]

I played here in the state high school tournament the past 3 years.

I really like the par 5s on this side. Number 2 I think I played 5 under in the 6 tournament rounds I have played there. Big hitters can take advantage of it. I played with people in the State High School tournament who were hitting wedges into the green for the second shot. The green has a lot of slope in it and the second shot needs to be on target otherwise its a tough up and down.

The 9th is a great spectator hole around the green. This hole always had anywhere from 50-100 people sitting around and behind it giving it a theater like feel for the player. A back pin I always thought made it the most fun as a player. A solid tee ball must be hit to have a look at the green in 2. Most players laid up anywhere from 80-120 to put their wedge games on display and since the player can't see the surface of the green, players would rely on crowd reaction to get a feel for how close they were. Pretty cool for high school players.

Back nine is very different than the front. I will wait for the back nine post

[Phil McDade]

University Ridge’s back nine:

No. 10 (483/424 yd par 4)
The course improves considerably on the back nine, in my view. The 10th is a medium-length par 4 (although long from the new back tees), cut out of a hardwood forest, that gently moves downhill to the green.  Like many forested holes, the fairway appears narrower than it actually is.


The 10th greensite; Jones once again uses his strategy of built-up mounds right with a fall-off left.


No. 11 (569/537 yd par 5)
A par 5 that moves gradually to the right. The bunkers on the right side of the fairway are in play from the back tees; the fairway bunkers left are in play for an overly aggressive second shot.


The green, a very good one with lots of subtle breaks, is deep but narrow, surrounded by what might be called the “URidge look” – mounding with deep bunkers.


No. 12 (200/174 yd par 3)
The second of two drop-shot par 3s on the course; one peeve I have about the course is that four of the five par 3s play downhill, with two of them being true drop-shot 3s. I like this one much better than #8; the green is angled away from the player, with bunkers framing the green. Note (again…) the mounding right of the green with traps, and trouble left with a greenside bunker that sits in a little depression.


No. 13 (336/316 yd par 4)
The shortest par 4 on the course, and the beginning of a run of par 4s where players can make birdies with well-placed shots. The fairway is sharply uphill, with the outcome of the drive blind, to a fairway with severe contouring.


A deep bunker guards the entrance of the shallow green.


No. 14 (398/377 yd par 4)
The chief obstacle here on the drive is to avoid a long and deep bunker that runs down the left side of the fairway.


The fairway runs out at around 300 yards (middle-left edge of photo); the approach is downhill to a greensite littered with bunkers, but it’s not an onerous shot.


No. 15 (352/321 yd par 4)
A severe dogleg right that runs downhill all the way to the green. The play here for many is to take aim at one of the three fairway bunkers and hit a cut.  The bold player will take aim at the skinny tree (to the right of the last fairway bunker) and bust a high drive over the tree.


The approach shot is downhill, and the green is receptive (with a significant back-to-front tilt, it’s also one of the tougher greens to putt). This hole has been aced periodically over the years since the course first opened. The green here is one of the better ones on the course, with a significant back-to-front tilt.


A look back at the fairway; in the fall, this is one of the prettiest spots on a golf course in Wisconsin.


I’ve always liked this stretch of short par 4s, as it gives the average player a chance at par and perhaps even birdie. But walking the course recently with a very good player, he suggested the better players view this stretch as a breather, and not much more challenging than fairway woods/hybrids off the tee and wedge-shot approaches. Jones had a lot of land to work with on the back nine; this player wondered why he didn’t take greater advantage of it on these par 4s. (I’ve noted earlier that URidge doesn’t suffer so much from bad holes – although it has some – as bad routing. Holes 13, 14 and 15 reflect this criticism; all short-to-very short par 4s that play back-to-back-to-back.)

No. 16 (554/533 yd par 5)
The bastard cousin of the par 5 2nd hole. Lots of choices here. The drive is downhill, and a large portion of the fairway (unseen by the player) winds around the large stand of trees. The play here is either a cut aimed off the fairway bunker left, or going directly over the trees.


Here’s what you’re left with – a solid tee shot left will find the upper tier of the fairway (left-middle of picture). Those taking on the tree stand will be on the lower portion. Those choosing to continue leftward on their journey will find an accommodating fairway that wraps around the bunkers to a hidden green. Those opting rightward can take aim at a small patch of fairway just to the right of the massive tree. Those going for it in two have to negotiate dozens of bunkers. The green is directly behind the tree – you can see the flag peeking out behind a mound to the left of the tree.


A look back at the split fairway. The back tees are on top of the rise, just to the left of the V-shaped tree.


The semi-boomerang shaped green.


The ski moguls that dot the back of the 16th green. Nearly 20 years after first playing this hole, I can’t say it’s grown on me.



No. 17 (250/192 yd par 3)
A long tee shot over a pond to a narrow but deep green. Although the hole’s strategy is not unique, it’s nicely executed, at least from the blue tees shown here. Again, like most of the other par 3s at URidge, the shot is downhill.


This is the new way-back tee from 250 yards. It’s a 200+ yard carry over the pond, because the back tee is sited further left of the regular tees. Although it’s doubtful this tee will be used much, it strikes me as being over-the-top difficult; the green looks like a postage stamp from back here.


No. 18 (413/408 yd par 4)
A strong finishing hole that plays longer than its yardage, as it is uphill for its entire length. Vaguely reminiscent of Augusta National’s finishing hole, the dogleg 18th at URidge begins from a tee set back in a cove of trees. The decision on the tee: how much of the dogleg to chew off, with a series of bunkers  to clear.


The 18th has two back tees, side-by-side, that give somewhat different looks to the tee shot.


The approach shot is uphill to a green with (it must be said, again…) mounds and bunkering right and a falloff left; it’s a deep green, but not very wide. This depicts the decidedly uphill nature of the hole.


A look back at the 18th.


As is probably evident, I have mixed thoughts on University Ridge. The course has always been in terrific shape when I’ve played or walked it. Many of the holes are good, a few excellent, with a nice mix of challenges and shots required. To its credit, it annually hosts (and essentially gives up the course for three days each time) the Wisconsin high school boys and girls golf tournaments. It’s one of the better teaching facilities in the area, and it clearly upped the ante for public golf in southern Wisconsin, and arguably the state as well.

But I also can’t help but think it’s something of an opportunity missed. The routing in several spots is unwieldy, and frequently causes pace-of-play problems. In a wonderful natural setting, a few holes simply seemed forced upon the land, with tricked-up defenses. I wonder about the lengthening, because doing so on some holes exacerbates the problems with those holes. It’s a good course, but not great, and in my view could have been better.

[Phil McDade]

I played here in the state high school tournament the past 3 years.

I really like the par 5s on this side. Number 2 I think I played 5 under in the 6 tournament rounds I have played there. Big hitters can take advantage of it. I played with people in the State High School tournament who were hitting wedges into the green for the second shot. The green has a lot of slope in it and the second shot needs to be on target otherwise its a tough up and down.

The 9th is a great spectator hole around the green. This hole always had anywhere from 50-100 people sitting around and behind it giving it a theater like feel for the player. A back pin I always thought made it the most fun as a player. A solid tee ball must be hit to have a look at the green in 2. Most players laid up anywhere from 80-120 to put their wedge games on display and since the player can't see the surface of the green, players would rely on crowd reaction to get a feel for how close they were. Pretty cool for high school players.

Back nine is very different than the front. I will wait for the back nine post

Keith:

Glad to see some comments; where'd you play HS golf? (The photos were taken during this past fall's HS girls tourney.)

Golly, what tees did you guys play from on 2? I know HS guys are long these days, and the hole does set up for a second shot into the green if the drive is very good. I do think for the average Joe, this hole creates a lot of the pace-of-play problems, because lots of folks feel compelled to go for that green in 2, and there is lots of trouble around that green and no real bailout area.

I'm not the biggest fan of 6, either -- fairly routine hole that derives it defenses mainly from its length.

I like 9 a lot, and that amphitheatre setting as you describe is really quite cool.

[Keith Buntrock]

Phil

I played at Thomas More in Milwaukee.

I completely forgot about number 6. Definitely not my favorite hole. Visually it was hard for me to pick something to aim at off the tee and commit to the shot.

I had to get out my old U Ridge yardage book to see where we played from. Brings back memories. We always played 2 at the 515 tee and guys (including me) would try to hit it over the bunkers and if we could hit the firm fairway, the ball would roll a good ways down there. If I hit a good drive, I had typically an 8 iron in. I did play with a kid who had 115 yards left, he drove it through the fairway. He did only make par though.

[Adam Clayman]

Truthfully, the only part of this course that I remembered, after 20 years and one play, was the corner of the dogleg on the drive on #18.

In it's day this course was held up as one of the best new courses in the region. And it was. The problem is the era isn't known for quality GC designs. my lack of memory confirms why. It all looks so formulaic. As though this course could've been constructed anywhere with similar flora and elevation change. Probably was.

[Phil McDade]

Adam:

What's frustrating to me about URidge is that Jones designed some good holes -- the clubhouse (like thousands of other courses) sits on the highest part of the property, and I've found that course architects sometimes struggle to route two nines with successful uphill finishes. But for my tastes, #'s 9 and 18 are two of the better holes there. I also think #10 is a very solid, natural hole routed through the woods, and the shortish, doglegging par 4 #15 (the one aced a few times over the years) is a very good short par 4 that again uses the terrain in a very natural way, with beautiful framing in the woods.

But I think the par 5s as a whole (with the exception of #9) are not great, and #'s 2 and 16 are quite contrived -- just too much stuff going on when the land really doesn't dictate it.

I think the course's major flaw is the initial front nine routing -- a docile-looking par 4 opener that suggests "hit away" on the tee but is quite penal (and thus slow-playing) if the ball is somewhat wayward off the tee, a par 5 #2 hole with both lots of options and lots of penal areas, a par 3 #3 that is tough, and a really tough par 4 #4 with again quite penal surrounds near the line of play. The more time I spend looking at and reading about courses, the more I'm interested in routing, because it seems so central to the success of the course as a piece of architecture. I think Jones fundamentally erred in how he routed the course with those opening four holes, and it really prevents the course from moving to an upper-tier course, because I'm not sure how you fix it.

[RJ_Daley]

When this course was built in 1988-90, and I was still living in Madison, I was first starting to get very interested in golf course design, maintenance, and was very new to the whole realm.  I used to go out and hang around the construction there a couple times a month.  I got to know the site construction super from Wadsworth, Jack Doherty.  As I remember, the site shut down for a year during construction, and I have forgotten the whole of reasons behind that, but some of it was there was extreme drought and heat one year and the ground was like dried cement.  What I remember was the incredible amount of drainage infrastructure there is in the project, and the intense routing and drainage design process.  I can only wonder if being a University course, the enviromentalists went overboard in their input of how to construct in and around wetlands, and woods, drainage courses, and flood plains and relative to the outlying areas of impact off- property.  I think that it was a bit of overkill with many "University types" with their fingers in the pie, but I could be wrong.  But, that may explain the difficult routing forced to go around issues.  I think it was a full employment act with Alumni foundation money with a gazzilion change orders and such for the construction co., and the whole process may have been blown up in terms of the concept of economical and least impact on the land VS a huge project with a deep well of budget, or ability to add 'extras'.  But, that was probably typical of that timeframe in golf course design and development, as the Doaks and C&Cs of the world were not exerting influence in design and construction yet. 

I also remember that about a year or two after opening, they had a massive failure in the turf on greens, apparently due to spec'ing the greens as modified USGA at that time, and using a sand rootzone mix that used sand from the Rock River, near Janesville, that had some sort of algae that killed the turf roots after they were newly established.

All in all, I haven't played the course since around 92 or 3 and haven't seen lengthening (not that I'd ever be back there anyway  )  But, I reckon it is a good course for the toon-a-mint players and college boys.  I woudn't want to play it regularly.

[Adam Clayman]

Phil, I couldn't disagree with your theory. I'm basing my contribution on limited exposure and how little I remember. That doesn't happen on a well routed great walk in the park. I do usually give the designer the benefit of the doubt on routing, until I've had a few more hundred cracks at her.

The stylistics are what eats at my core. Everything is obviously manipulated and the scallopy curves in the maintenance presentation only accentuates the hand of man. I don't loathe it. I just consider it Zappa-esque. Strictly Commercial.

[Phil McDade]

Dick:

Interesting observations from being on the ground -- there is some evidence of that drainage work. During the HS girls tourney there last fall, one of the girls in the group I was following had her ball come to rest on a large drainage cover, and came up to her ball with a "huh?" look on her face (she correctly took her relief).

I wonder, though, about the environmental angle -- the land for URidge is right next door to the land for Hawks Landing, the Harbottle course that covers similar terrain and actually has a somewhat similar look, save for the houses and condos dotting the sides of fairways at HL, and absent at URidge (the point being that HL presumably has a lot more runoff due to impervious surfaces like roads and driveways and roofs, which URidge has none of). I always had the sense the university had a pretty free hand with the environmental sign-offs on that project -- the acrerage out there is much larger than the land taken up by the course (they were initially going to build a second 18 there, but those plans have been shelved). Maybe the extensive drainage was more a product of the design and soils -- particularly on the back nine on some of those heavily forested holes, I can see the place needing drainage help.

[Matthew Rose]

I played this a lot back in the day.... not so much recently. Oddly enough, most of the time I ended up playing the back nine first, which was a pleasant way to begin. I certainly like the back nine much better.

The new tees on this course are just wrong, especially on the par threes. It has been awhile for me, but I sufficiently recall the character of many of these holes. #17 is already 200 over water and usually into the wind anyway... a 250 yard tee just makes it ridiculous.

#3 from what I recall is one of the shallowest greens on the entire course and they want to play it at 242?

Good to see that they've cleaned it (#3) up somewhat.... 15 years ago it was kind of a sand/marsh/pit/waste thing that seemed to be a water hazard part of the time, a bunker part of the time, and something in between the rest of the time.

#9 was 560 uphill already, is a 585 tee necessary?

#4 is still a terrible hole.

One thing this course always had going for it was the conditioning... every time I ever played it, it was in top notch condition. I've had some of the best putting days of my life on those greens.

[J_ Crisham]

Phil,   I would guess I have played U ridge probably15-20 times since it opened and I would say that it receives far less credit than it deserves.  The 10th hole is probably one of my favorite holes in Wis. Just a great long par 4. Requires two very good shots to find the green. Always thought the greens here rolled nice.   Jack

[Phil McDade]

Jack:

Agree on 10 -- a very nice hole, pretty stunning in the fall with the foliage.

Interestingly, in part because my view on the course runs so counter to lots of folks in the area, I've always thought URidge gets too much credit from the golf crowd around here. I think that's partly because of the nature of public golf in the greater Madison area -- before URidge came along, public golf here was a mostly hum-drum collection of muni's, middle of the road daily fees, and not much else. I'm convinced people think so highly of it because it's a lot better than what was here before.

It is maintained to a pretty high standard; agree on that.

[RJ_Daley]

What is truly a pity is that Jay Blasi is too darn young!!!  I can only imagine if he'd have had a shot at the design, given what I've seen of the collaborative work he participated on at Chambers Bay for the same name architect.  I'd love to know what the hometown kid would have done with it, without any restraints of hesitation in respect to his current employment.  Of course I can think of a half dozen archies that I'd love to see what they would have done with the land, including at the top of that list, Mike DeVries.  Given what Mike did with a way more severe but somewhat similar rolling and drainage way-wet areas that he had to do at Greywalls, and somewhat similar terrain at Kingsley, Mike might be my first pick.

What do they say about wishes and buts, candy and nuts... 

[Keith Buntrock]

I took a walk back to the new back 17th tee while my group had about a 30 minute wait. I understand that this new tee will probably only be used for college tournaments, but this hole might be too hard from back there. The hole is plenty challenging enough from 200 yards out. There is always a wait on this tee anyways and a 240 tee will not help that at all.

[Phil McDade]

What is truly a pity is that Jay Blasi is too darn young!!!  I can only imagine if he'd have had a shot at the design, given what I've seen of the collaborative work he participated on at Chambers Bay for the same name architect.  I'd love to know what the hometown kid would have done with it, without any restraints of hesitation in respect to his current employment.  Of course I can think of a half dozen archies that I'd love to see what they would have done with the land, including at the top of that list, Mike DeVries.  Given what Mike did with a way more severe but somewhat similar rolling and drainage way-wet areas that he had to do at Greywalls, and somewhat similar terrain at Kingsley, Mike might be my first pick.

What do they say about wishes and buts, candy and nuts... 

Dick:

Boy, I couldn't agree more! One reason I lament the university's decision not to proceed with a second 18. I understand the fiscal reasons for not doing so -- there is a sense that golf around here in Madison has been built out to capacity, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of course closings in the next few years given the economic situation. It would've been neat to see a different architect's take on a second 18 on this land.

[RJ_Daley]

Phil, Should the day come for another 18, then if they stayed with Jones's firm, Blasi would most likely have his shot. 

[Morgan Clawson]

Phil,

Thanks for posting these photos.  I have enjoyed several rounds at University Ridge over the years, and its good to relive the course via your pics.

I think the major flaws of the course are holes 2-4. 

The problem with #2 is that the 1st and 2nd shots are basically blind.  The player can't really see where to aim and where the trouble lies. That would be ok at a club, but not a daily fee course.

The wind really blows on #3 and it's a fairly penal hole.  The marsh in front is obvious, but the green drops-off sharply in the back, so anything long is in the junk too. Always a lot of lost balls here.

I agree that #4 is probably the worst.  I was stuck along that tree line, and there are just no good options for a creative rescue shot.  I think cutting down 2/3 of those trees would make a big difference.  Or they could widen the fairway on the left side.  Even with a wider landing it would still be a demanding uphill 2nd shot.

Things get so much better at the #5 tee.  But you feel like you have already played about 9 holes of golf.

The problems aside, it's still a fun course, and infinitely better than the miserable Hawk's Landing down the road.

[Phil McDade]

University Ridge lands a stop on the Champions Tour next year:

http://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/champions/news/2015/06/01/american-family-insurance-championship.html

[RJ_Daley]

I heard from some non-golfers that they heard Madison news that UR was getting a senior pro tournament.  I assumed it was just a State PGA or something.   But now that I have seen the video clips of Stricker interviews as he will be the Champion's tournament host of the American Family INs. sponsored event, I would say it doesn't add any more credibility to the design.   It is just a adequate venue, not horrible, not great. 

I was down there Sunday morning and took a ride to my friend's new home in Hawks Landing and agree with Morgan.  The more I see HL, and all the parade of homes and condos, the more unappealing it gets.  No, I haven't actually played HL, and perhaps there are some decent hole design corridors that Harbottle designed withing the routing of the course.  But, I just can't see how one could ever get enthused by such a complex of housing that is jammed along what seems like every hole.  At least UR doesn't have that.

[Phil McDade]

Although I am loath to bump any of the current USGA-bashing threads to the second page, I thought it might be timely to bump this photo thread as the Senior PGA Tour comes to town to play URidge, hosting its first pro tournament (it's the home course of the Wisconsin Badgers golf team, of course, and regularly hosts the state high school golf tournaments). A good field on hand this week for the tournament.

[Will Peterson]

Having grown up playing URidge and working there in HS, I am excited to see the pros visit this week.  Haven't been back in a number of years, but have always had a fondness for the course.  I liked many of the new tees they added and some of the adjustments, but had issue with a couple of others, especially 17.  It was the first place that I noticed a style by an architect.  I played some other RTJ, Jr courses while in HS, and noticed they had a lot of common features and had a similar look to URidge. It was an early introduction to architecture without me even knowing it.

[Mike Sweeney]

It was the first place that I noticed a style by an architect.  I played some other RTJ, Jr courses while in HS, and noticed they had a lot of common features and had a similar look to URidge. It was an early introduction to architecture without me even knowing it.

Same for me at Cornell's RTJ's course.


The RTJ portfolio is really unappreciated here, and I am guilty of that view. They touch a lot of good bases, including maintenance cost, and I need to make a re-visit soon. I am headed to Ithaca this summer and may try to catch a Cornell/Colgate RTJ update. Thanks for posting.