Chicago GC VS. Milwaukee CC

[Steve Salmen]

A few years ago I came to the conclusion that the the Chicago GC is pretty much the best course that could have been built on that site.  It's not a particularly special piece of land for golf, but was used optimally and the end product is timeless.


Last week I played Milwaukee CC.  It is one of the best sites I've ever played golf on, and the course is excellent.  However, on the drive home, I had to ask myself if Langford or Macdonald would have done better at Milwaukee?  The two main things that caught my attention were the quantity of trees on the course, and the overstatement of the bunkers.  They are big, bold and in your face. The greens and surrounds were excellent, and tour pros would be envious of the condition it was maintained.


Considering Chicago has an extraordinary course on a relatively ordinary piece of land, I have to believe something super special  (top 5 or 10 special) was an opportunity lost at Milwaukee.


Thoughts?

[J_ Crisham]

Steve,
     I've only played Milwaukee CC 4 times so my knowledge of it is certainly less than what I have of Chicago Golf Club. I think the routing is pretty solid at Milwaukee. The use of the elevation changes for both tee and green siting is strong , the bunkering quite bold. You have a strong mix of long par 4's and the world class short 9th. I think the only weakness is the unpredictability of the Milwaukee river and it's affect on the back nine. As good as Milwaukee is,  it is my 3rd favorite course in Wisconsin behind Lawsonia and Blue Mound.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I dont get the comparison, Steve.


CBM/Raynor v Colt/Allison...?


I could see CGC v. Blue Mound (Raynor).


What is your thesis?

[SL_Solow]

Were the trees at Milwaukee part of the original design?

[Tom_Doak]

Were the trees at Milwaukee part of the original design?

They would have been much smaller in 1927!

[Tom_Doak]

Considering Chicago has an extraordinary course on a relatively ordinary piece of land, I have to believe something super special  (top 5 or 10 special) was an opportunity lost at Milwaukee.


Thoughts?

Steve:


I have consulted at both clubs for many years, although it's really Don Placek and Brian Schneider who have done the work fixing the vandalism to Milwaukee CC -- I have not been back for a few years now.


I agree pretty much with your description of Chicago Golf Club, although frankly I am always surprised it rates as high as it does; history and pedigree play a role in that.  Even if you try to keep their design styles out of it, the Macdonald label just has more cachet than Alison, at least in the USA.


Milwaukee Country Club is a very nice site for a golf course:  it's actually remarkably similar to The Park Club in Buffalo and Davenport CC in Iowa and [from what I hear] Kirtland CC in Cleveland, which are all Alison courses, too.


So, are you saying he could have had four of the top five?     


Those are all fine sites, but to think any of them are in the league of Sand Hills or Shinnecock or Royal County Down is quite a stretch.  There are probably a couple hundred sites for courses around the world that are of the same quality.

[Steve Salmen]

My point was this: there are several courses that rank in between Milwaukee (phenomenal site) vs. Chicago which ranks much higher on a worse site.  I'm curious if Milwaukee would be much for famous had a course with more geometric angles, squared greens, and angular bunkers not so visible been built.


Tom, other than National, did CMB ever build a golf course on a better site than Milwaukee? 


The biggest compliment I can pay to Milwaukee, is that the river holes lie on the flattest part of the golf course and Allison built wonderful golf holes on them.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tom, other than National, did CMB ever build a golf course on a better site than Milwaukee? 

SLeepy Hollow, Old White, Mid Ocean?

[Jimmy Muratt]

My point was this: there are several courses that rank in between Milwaukee (phenomenal site) vs. Chicago which ranks much higher on a worse site.  I'm curious if Milwaukee would be much for famous had a course with more geometric angles, squared greens, and angular bunkers not so visible been built.


Tom, other than National, did CMB ever build a golf course on a better site than Milwaukee? 


The biggest compliment I can pay to Milwaukee, is that the river holes lie on the flattest part of the golf course and Allison built wonderful golf holes on them.

Steve,

I think you're overestimating the quality of the site at Milwaukee CC.   While certainly a good site, stating that it's "phenomenal" is a stretch.   There aren't that many phenomenal sites and those that do exist are all pure sand based.  Macdonald had several other quality sites in addition to those Tommy mentioned, what about The Creek and Piping Rock?   

[Steven Blake]

I worked as the assistant superintendent for 4 seasons at MCC and have been on the CGC property. As far as MCC is concerned over half of the trees on the property have been cut down since the early 2000s. So great strides have been made in that department. What I feel MCC lacks with compared to many great courses is green contours. The complexes with its good bunkering would be even better with more interesting greens. The property is good to very good but would not call it great. It’s not on sand so to me it automatically throws it out of the great category.


I think the routing of Alisons is good if not very good. You have to remember Walter Travis built an 18 hole golf course on the same site only to be demolished a few years later by Alison. Members hated the hill climbing Travis made them play and walk up and down. Alisons routing handled this problem beautifully, however I think Alisons routing with Travis greens it would be a much better course I feel. But we will never know!


I’m a sucker for MacRaynor golf but their green complexes are outstanding both in bunkering and contours. Their work or any architects like MacRaynor, Travis, Mackenzie or even Maxwell would have made  Milwaukee outstanding with Alisons routing.


So it must be great greens make up for a lot?But in order to be one of the top 30 or so don’t you need sublime routing and interesting greens? Also in that do you throw in great property ?


I love Bluemound in Milwaukee it has a good routing and very very good greens but a very flat site on clay soils. It very good but not elite. I feel Raynors work there is better than at CGC. I don’t think CGC is elite either but very good.  Maybe you need all 3 to be in top few handfuls of courses in the world?




Blake

[J_ Crisham]

I worked as the assistant superintendent for 4 seasons at MCC and have been on the CGC property. As far as MCC is concerned over half of the trees on the property have been cut down since the early 2000s. So great strides have been made in that department. What I feel MCC lacks with compared to many great courses is green contours. The complexes with its good bunkering would be even better with more interesting greens. The property is good to very good but would not call it great. It’s not on sand so to me it automatically throws it out of the great category.


I think the routing of Alisons is good if not very good. You have to remember Walter Travis built an 18 hole golf course on the same site only to be demolished a few years later by Alison. Members hated the hill climbing Travis made them play and walk up and down. Alisons routing handled this problem beautifully, however I think Alisons routing with Travis greens it would be a much better course I feel. But we will never know!


I’m a sucker for MacRaynor golf but their green complexes are outstanding both in bunkering and contours. Their work or any architects like MacRaynor, Travis, Mackenzie or even Maxwell would have made  Milwaukee outstanding with Alisons routing.


So it must be great greens make up for a lot?But in order to be one of the top 30 or so don’t you need sublime routing and interesting greens? Also in that do you throw in great property ?


I love Bluemound in Milwaukee it has a good routing and very very good greens but a very flat site on clay soils. It very good but not elite. I feel Raynors work there is better than at CGC. I don’t think CGC is elite either but very good.  Maybe you need all 3 to be in top few handfuls of courses in the world?




Blake

Steven,
     Earlier this afternoon I hosted a group of pals from Shoreacres at Blue Mound. Having not been before they were amazed at the sophistication of the green complexes. It’s something I notice when hosting first timers. Usually by the 2nd green the comments start with: Are the remaining greens this good? Yes . I’ve had the good fortune to play 14 different CBM/Raynor courses and I feel comfortable placing Blue Mound’s green complexes in my top 3.
    I also believe that to the casual observer the property might be described as flattish. It has been routed so effectively it incorporates several uphill and downhill shots . The tree removal and fescue additions have created excellent vistas thru the property. Having played Chicago Golf many times over the years I fail to see a great if any separation between it and Blue Mound. Both wonderful layouts indeed.

 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, other than National, did CMB ever build a golf course on a better site than Milwaukee? 

SLeepy Hollow, Old White, Mid Ocean?

Mid Ocean is a better site, and maybe The Creek, also mentioned here.  The others are debatable at best.  Yale is certainly more dramatic, although also much harder to build upon.

[JC Jones]

Morris County - one of the quirkiest and fun sites I've seen in a long time.