University of Michigan - Changes to #6

[MCirba]

I thought Doak  gave UofM a 5, not a 3?   I just looked at it the other night, but perhaps that aging memory got me again...

[Joe Bausch]

I thought Doak  gave UofM a 5, not a 3?   I just looked at it the other night, but perhaps that aging memory got me again...

Doak gave it a 5.


After my recent visit I thought it was a maybe a 6, with the ability to be a 7.  I loved the place, and know it can be presented even better.


But I'm an easy grader.  Except in my Orgo class.   

[Sean_A]

I thought Doak  gave UofM a 5, not a 3?   I just looked at it the other night, but perhaps that aging memory got me again...

Doak gave it a 5.


After my recent visit I thought it was a maybe a 6, with the ability to be a 7.  I loved the place, and know it can be presented even better.


But I'm an easy grader.  Except in my Orgo class.   

Jeepers, my copy says 3 for UofM...rated 9/86. 

Is Vol 3 out?

Ben...you grade far too easy for a world scale. I think I am a bit hard because I am hedging my bets against courses which are reputedly awesome that I haven't seen.  To give you a flavour...I think Merion is just as good as the best course I have seen (quite clearly head and shoulders above Michigan & Franklin) and I give it an 8.  I have seen pix of places which lead me to believe they could be better than Merion...meaning a great design with great turf built on sand...and Pinehurst isn't one of them. 


Ciao

[Joe Bausch]

Doak's rating of 5 is from 6/95.


Perhaps some of his scores from the original CG to the first bound version we're updated?


Tom?

[BCowan]

Sean,

   I'm just hoping you will list all the courses you feel are 7 and higher.  I didn't know you were a sand elitist .  A course has to be built on Sand in order to be a 9 or 10?    .   What course(s) do you rate 9 and 10?  I rate Pinehurst #2 an 8.6, Doak gives it a 10, so I can't be that easy.  What do you give Old Town?   

What is your dream 5 US courses? 

[Sean_A]

Joe

Thanks.  Everybody is entitled to make mistakes 

Ben

There is absolutely no question in my mind that the combination of design and sand has the potential to be better than solely design.  A lot more variety and architectural choices can be had on sand.   

7s

Pinehurst #2 - not seen the sandy version, but doubt it makes a 3* for me simply because of the repetitive nature of the greens...I suspect if the greens were more like the originals it would make the grade.  I also am not convinced there are enough really top notch holes. Even if I believed in a perfect 10....Pinehurst is never going to make that score for me.  2*

Orchard Lake  1*

Roaring Gap  1*

MidPines  1*

Dormie Club  1*

Old Town  2*

Courses close to a 7 (could be convinced they are with more plays): Franklin Hills, Tobacco Road, Yeamans Hall and Rolling Green. UofM is well off the mark, but for me a very solid 6. 

8s

Merion...should be a 9 but for absolutely stupid rough  3*

Kiawah...just about hangs on as an 8, with more plays I could see my score drop because of the few awkward walks and the sticky grass.   2*

My favourite of these is far and away Old Town and the best is comfortably Merion. 

Ciao

[MCirba]

Sean/All,

It appears you have an earlier version of Tom Doak's "Confidential Guide" than I do.   Apparently he made a subsequent visit in 1995 that caused him to revise his rating upwards.   

I agree with Joe's assessment that today's course is a strong 6 that could be a 7, or 7.5 with aggressive tree management, less watering (i.e. firmer conditions), and further green expansion.

Here is what my version of TCG says about UofM.   

[JStewart]

I'm glad they expanded the back of #6 green .. when I played the course regularly (about 10-15 years ago), it was almost impossible when they stuck the pin back there. I also love holes where the simple placement of the pin can take a hole from easy to challenging. #6 at Oakland Hills South is similar as well -- a short par-4 that goes from birdie to tough par depending on whether the pin is in the front or back of the green.

[BCowan]

What is interesting is the green currently is around 6,000 sqft and that originally was 10,000 sqft.  500 sqft reclaimed a few years back, another 4,000 would be interesting to see. 

Last fall and this year the course has played softer then prior years IMO.  I'm waiting to apply for the benevolent dictator position, but it hasn't come up yet 

[Tom_Doak]

Sean/All,

It appears you have an earlier version of Tom Doak's "Confidential Guide" than I do.   Apparently he made a subsequent visit in 1995 that caused him to revise his rating upwards.   

I agree with Joe's assessment that today's course is a strong 6 that could be a 7, or 7.5 with aggressive tree management, less watering (i.e. firmer conditions), and further green expansion.

Here is what my version of TCG says about UofM.   

My first visit to the course was in the early 1980's, and it was in just awful shape then, overgrown by trees and a lot of poor turf.  Anyone going to see a "lost MacKenzie" would have been sorely disappointed.  Arthur Hills "restored" it in the early 90's, and while he did not go far enough and also changed some things, it was at least brought into decent condition ... I stand by my 5 at the time.  I have not been back since then, as the restoration has sounded like a work in progress and I didn't want to report on it half-done.  But I don't think it would be a 7 and certainly not an 8, even if I restored it myself.  Pasatiempo it is not.

[MCirba]

Thanks for weighing in, Tom.   I went into the round at U of M with fairly low expectations and was very pleasantly surprised at how good the land was and how well it was utilized by the routing.   Further, most of the green sites and internal contouring of the greens was terrific.

They could take out a bunch more trees and improve it further but if they turned down the sprinklers and trusted the land to do its work I think it would be great fun.   Not in Pasa territory, as you say, but then again Pasa is very special.

[BCowan]

But I don't think it would be a 7 and certainly not an 8, even if I restored it myself

  Tom,

      I have more confidence in you then you do.  The land is pretty damn good.  It's very bold and anymore movement it would be a drain to walk.  People over 60 seldom walk it.  It would be hard to be a 7? Seriously? 

[Tom_Doak]

But I don't think it would be a 7 and certainly not an 8, even if I restored it myself

  Tom,

      I have more confidence in you then you do.  The land is pretty damn good.  It's very bold and anymore movement it would be a drain to walk.  People over 60 seldom walk it.  It would be hard to be a 7? Seriously?

Being a fairly tough walk does not GAIN you points on the Doak Scale.  It could wind up being a 7, but my threshold for 7's is higher than most people's, because I have seen a lot more of them than most people have.

[Mike Schott]

But I don't think it would be a 7 and certainly not an 8, even if I restored it myself

  Tom,

      I have more confidence in you then you do.  The land is pretty damn good.  It's very bold and anymore movement it would be a drain to walk.  People over 60 seldom walk it.  It would be hard to be a 7? Seriously?

The problem with the U of M course is there are some outstanding holes and a bunch that are just plain ordinary. Holes like 8, 9, 13 and 14 are terrific while 1 and 18 are far more ordinary. I love the course but it's at best a 7 even if fully restored.

[BCowan]

Tom,

No you miss interpreted me, my point was too tough of a walk, requiring a back 9 cartball would deduct points on the Cowan Scale  .  The only 10 I've played is Pinehurst #2, which i have (8.6-9.2) due to need for tree removal.  I think I prefer playing Arble 4's, 5's, and 6's...

   We had 1 or 2 guys at dinner that proclaimed they preferred UofM to Crystal 

[BCowan]

But I don't think it would be a 7 and certainly not an 8, even if I restored it myself

  Tom,

      I have more confidence in you then you do.  The land is pretty damn good.  It's very bold and anymore movement it would be a drain to walk.  People over 60 seldom walk it.  It would be hard to be a 7? Seriously?

The problem with the U of M course is there are some outstanding holes and a bunch that are just plain ordinary. Holes like 8, 9, 13 and 14 are terrific while 1 and 18 are far more ordinary. I love the course but it's at best a 7 even if fully restored.

  #1 is a really solid par 5, the bunker to the right 50 yards short of the green is brilliantly placed for the guy going at it in 2.  The road/rough maint meld for football parking really ruins the hole, for Rough by cart path should be removed and replaced with fairway.  The green at #1 is very very good.  Hole was originally a Par 4 if I recall.   

   #18 is ruined by the pond, which isn't original, I hardly think that hole restored is ordinary. 

#16 and #17 are the ordinary holes imo on the course, but #17 has a solid green.  Tree removal would greatly improve those holes.   

[PCCraig]

I just looked through Joe's photo tour of the U of M course, which was fun because it jogged my memory of my one play of the course in 2005. I remember liking the course a lot when I played it and I think if I went back I would enjoy it again.


That horseshoe green is just awesome (and I believe it was the inspiration for a similar green at Crooked Stick?).


Based on the original Doak scale, I could see it being a 7 I suppose as I don't think I would be disappointed if I drove 100 miles to play it. But realistically it's probably more of a 6? Again, this is based on the original Doak Scale.


However, what the heck is the deal with all of the evergreen trees out at the U of M. There are a ton but they all really need to go.


For the record, I think Pinehurst #2 is a worthy 10. Especially in its current form. I have been accused of hating trees in the past and that is one place where I don't think I thought the course was over treed once.

[BCowan]

Pat,

    If you gander at Arble's tour from over 5 years ago you can see how many trees were removed.  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34505.0.html    They aren't unlike any other Midwestern course that went tree planting crazy in some decade.  Some trees remain due to liability by 4 tee, behind 8 green to block hook off 7 tee.  They removed 3 or 4 huge evergreens behind 8 green. 

    The course is very fun to play and it's in better shape then 10 years ago i hear from locals, unfortunately they have over watered it, in the last year.  The greens have nasty grain in them, making inside of 5 feet tough.  Trying to get them to put brushes on mowers.  I think if the course was private and fully restored many would have a totally different outlook.  You are hard pressed to find better land for a parklands course and its right next to downtown.  Hopefully I can obtain some original photos and post them in the next year.  I can't think of a more challenging 6600 yard track to play that is still fun at the same time. 

    The trees at Pinehurst #2 are more from agronomic point of view, lack of sunlight to greens and prevents wind patterns IMO.     

[MCirba]

The other thing the U of M course has going for it is a great "sense of place".   

[Mike Schott]

The other thing the U of M course has going for it is a great "sense of place".

How do you mean this? It's across the street from campus on a very busy road and bordered east and west by busy roads. I suppose you mean AA but that's it's worst quality  .

[MCirba]

Mike,

I love courses that are part of their larger surroundings, reflecting their own unique environment, particularly those that are "in town" such as The Old Course or the U of M course.  Perhaps it's just a personal preference.