Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mike H on August 18, 2010, 08:53:16 PM
-
I am planning a trip to the Chicago area in late September and am considering playing Cog Hill #4-Dubsdread. Is this course fun to play and would people recommend this while in Chicago?
-
Playing there tomorrow morning. I'll let you know.
-
its very difficult...but if you can get on any of the good privates you should play one of them, no doubt
-
It's the best public in Chicago, right?
-
Agree with Paul--its a very difficult championship course. My Dad and I played it a couple weeks ago--he has knee issues and I essentially had to fish balls out of the bunkers for him because they were tough to get in and out. The couple he could enter actually weren't that tough to play from.
It's probably worth playing for the last seven holes, which are pretty cool to see in person if you've watched tournaments there in the past. Its not something I'd want a steady diet of, however, due to the difficulty.
-
I have played it 4 or 5 times and enjoyed it (I am not sure whether I have played it after Rees Jones' work several years ago). It is generally a big golf course in the sense that the greens are gigantic. There is not a ton of strategic interest - you generally hit it down the middle and hit it on the large greens which have a number of sections.
The par 3's are the strength of the course. 2 is a short par 3 ringed by bunkers (there are actually 2 number 2's that they alternate), 6 is a terrific hole of about 200 yards with the green sloping left to right with the slope of the hill on which it sits. 11 is a mid to long iron to a very shallow green and 14 is a downhill hole with a green that slopes severely right to left with the hill on which it sits.
I also like the par fives. 5 is short with an awkward green (I assume it is still a 5 for regular play), 9 is long and tight but presents an interesting 2nd shot. 11 is awkward but again presents an interesting choice of line for the 2nd and 15 is a good short uphill par five easily reachable with 3 conservative shots but very difficult to hit in 2 because of the slopes off the tee and the bunkering around the green.
Of the par fours, I liked 4 which is a medium length downhill hole to a tightly bunkered green, 7 is a good dogleg right around a bunker that requires you to know how far you will hit your tee shot and choose the correct line to leave an approach to a big green with a number of different tightly bunkered lobes, 16 is a terrific hole on the short side that wraps around a sideslope and has a redan like green and 18 is a tough finisher with a green sloping towards a pond on the left.
I would guess it would rate a 5 or maybe a 6 on the Doak Scale.
-
Jason,
Pretty sure you haven't seen it post-renovation. #5 is now a par four, about 450/470 range even from the regular tees and slightly uphill. It might as well be a par five with a big bunker in front of the green.
#7 now goes around a pond instead of a bunker.
#16 is a really good hole, and I think #13 (which I believe is the one you referred to as #14) is also very good.
-
Actually, 12 is the par 3, (or was) and 14 is also a par 3.
-
Actually, 12 is the par 3, (or was) and 14 is also a par 3.
I guess I had two 11's in my description.
-
I played COg Hill #4 in July and thought the course was awesome. The renovations to the greens complexes are very good. The greens appear to be elevated while the greenside bunkers have be recessed into the terrain making them very difficult. The course was in wonderful condition in July. I would highly recommend Dubsdread to anyone visiting Chicago. It is not cheap but well worth playing. I would also recommend #2 as a means of lowering your average price per round. The long overdue clubhouse renovations provided an excellent respite post round.
-
If you like elevated greens with deep fronting bunkers this place is for you. Too repetitive in my mind as far as this goes.
Overall though I always enjoy playing there. Agree on the difficulty. I also felt there were few holes where strategy comes into play but it's a good ball striking test.
-
Back before the PGA Tour got their selfish mitts on this course, there was plenty of strategy, mostly due to the nature of the sand in the bunkers. Also, I can cite at least on hole where I learned about strategy, the 15th.
One use to need to drive the ball to the right, so that their second, could find the left side for their approach to this 3 shotter.
Since moving away from Chicago and seeing quality designs elsewhere, the statement that Cog Hill #4 is one of Chicago's bests, may very well be true, but, is a sad reality.
-
Of the "high end" publics in Chicago, Cog Hill is probably your best option with The Glen Club coming in second. This is assuming the $125+ green fee isn't a big deal to you.
I don't mind Cog Hill, but since the renovation it is a VERY hard golf course. I think the front nine is just so-so but the back nine is really very good with some strong holes.
Another fun public option is Ravisloe on the South Side, that time of year it might cost you ~$50 but during the week the course is empty and you can play what used to be a private "Ross"/Esler course.
-
If you haven't been there before, particularly post-renovation, then Dubs is definitely worth the trip, even at $155. Super Ken Lapp has figured out how not to kill the greens during the tournament (this was definitely an issue during the first years of the Western Open in July, as the permanent tee time players were stuck on patches of dirt for the rest of the season when they first came over from Butler), and you'll be there several weeks after the BMW. Hopefully the rough will be cut by the time you show up because, as noted above, the course is very difficult even without tournament conditioned rough around the greens.
If you're looking for company, post a thread a week before you know when you want to play -- you'll probably find some dg members willing to tag along. . .
-
Mike,
Worth playing, particularly if you're a strong player. IMHO the renovation is a mixed bag. Better in the sense that they did some much needed tree clearing on a few holes (i.e. #8), maybe not so much in the sense that there's a bit too much similarity now in terms of greens and bunkering. Definitely a good test. On the public side I'd second the Ravisloe recommendation and you could add Pine Meadow and Shepherd's Crook depending on how much time you have. Also the Glen Club's worth a look if you're a Fazio fan and not too price sensitive...
-
Since the renovations, how much of the original Dick Wilson design still remains?
-
Since the renovations, how much of the original Dick Wilson design still remains?
During my one play 20 years ago, I thought the dominant Dick Wilson style was in the large, slightly elevated greens that looked like four leaf clovers with deep bunkers cut into the openings between green sections.
In effect, those large greens were divided into several smaller areas that played very small.
It made for a demanding shotmaker's course regardless of which tees you played, and your sand game had to be good as well.
I have no idea what Rees might have done since then.
-
Since the renovations, how much of the original Dick Wilson design still remains?
The layout is essentially the same. As mentioned, the major changes were around the greens with some changes to the fairway bunkering. With respect to the greens, see Jeff Tang's comment above. Rees basically raised the greens, resulting in much deeper fronting bunkers and smaller putting surfaces (think of a mountain being chopped off halfway up as opposed to a quarter of the way up). The large greens described in Jason Topp's post are no longer as large as they once were.
The course in its current iteration demands length and accuracy off of the tee and the ability to hit high, long shots into the greens. There are very few holes where the ground game is an option (and where it is the player is only given a narrow chute to bounce the ball through). The par threes are fairly repetitive (I have played the same club on 3 of the 4 in a round). There are two weak par fives (5 and 15), one par five that is a tree hallway (9) and one that is a great three shot hole but an almost impossible two shotter (11). The par 4's are generally very strong holes, with the closing stretch of 16-18 being close to as good as it gets. Its a strong test of golf and worth playing, but the grind can get a little cumbersome.
-
It's a slog. :)
Plus, it needs to start growing some grass ASAP to be PGA Tour ready in three weeks. The horirble summer we've had has certainly taken its toll on Dubsdread.
I found it to be long, hard and boring...the same way I found it to be before the renovations.
Regarding the renovations, I think it's a better golf course today. That said, some of the fairway bunkering is just terrible.
Will I go back? Yes. Do I reccomend it for visitors due to the immedate and present history of it? Yes. Is it fun? No.
-
Ryan
So have they lost fairways and greens?
-
As of a week ago, no. During my last round on Dubs I was shocked at how many drives were plugging or checking up in the fairways, while approach shots would leave a inch deep ball mark yet somehow find a way to run out on the greens.
-
The fairways are generally good. Some of the green run offs are nearly dead - likely due to standing water.
3-4 greens are teetering on the brink - but all still have grass for now.
Looks like the weather is going to be good in the near term...hopefully it gets some grass growing.
-
It's a slog. :)
Plus, it needs to start growing some grass ASAP to be PGA Tour ready in three weeks. The horirble summer we've had has certainly taken its toll on Dubsdread.
I found it to be long, hard and boring...the same way I found it to be before the renovations.
Regarding the renovations, I think it's a better golf course today. That said, some of the fairway bunkering is just terrible.
Will I go back? Yes. Do I reccomend it for visitors due to the immedate and present history of it? Yes. Is it fun? No.
Overkill IMO. Boring makes sense. I'm not a long hitter so I have no business past 6,700 this thing is designed for a US Open. Period. It's not even enjoyable from 6,700. The fairway bunkers for the most part are " wedge out's" Seriously, they are so deep the average player has zero chance of advancing the ball more that 30 or 40 yards. I 'm a professional and I might have been in 3 or 4 fairway bunkers and at best I think I hit an 8 iron about 120 just to advance the ball.
The biggest dissapointment is that the greens have already turned into the same old spongy trampolines with waaaay too much grass on them. The supt. out there has never been able to buiild the base up through top dressing to get the speed and and trueness to tour level. It's time he was put out to pasture. He's been with the Jemseks for 30 years and he's a fixture that has the job as long as he wants it.
The course is a ghost town. It's too expensive anymore for even corporate types to even want tom gom there. Especially with how difficult it is in addition to the terrible greens. All you have to do is go up to Pine Meadow and check out their greens. Night and day. I hate it too because Mr. Jemsek and the old man have always taken care of PGA members.
-
It's a slog. :)
Plus, it needs to start growing some grass ASAP to be PGA Tour ready in three weeks. The horirble summer we've had has certainly taken its toll on Dubsdread.
I found it to be long, hard and boring...the same way I found it to be before the renovations.
Regarding the renovations, I think it's a better golf course today. That said, some of the fairway bunkering is just terrible.
Will I go back? Yes. Do I reccomend it for visitors due to the immedate and present history of it? Yes. Is it fun? No.
Overkill IMO. Boring makes sense. I'm not a long hitter so I have no business past 6,700 this thing is designed for a US Open. Period. It's not even enjoyable from 6,700. The fairway bunkers for the most part are " wedge out's" Seriously, they are so deep the average player has zero chance of advancing the ball more that 30 or 40 yards. I 'm a professional and I might have been in 3 or 4 fairway bunkers and at best I think I hit an 8 iron about 120 just to advance the ball.
The biggest dissapointment is that the greens have already turned into the same old spongy trampolines with waaaay too much grass on them. The supt. out there has never been able to buiild the base up through top dressing to get the speed and and trueness to tour level. It's time he was put out to pasture. He's been with the Jemseks for 30 years and he's a fixture that has the job as long as he wants it.
The course is a ghost town. It's too expensive anymore for even corporate types to even want tom gom there. Especially with how difficult it is in addition to the terrible greens. All you have to do is go up to Pine Meadow and check out their greens. Night and day. I hate it too because Mr. Jemsek and the old man have always taken care of PGA members.
Ryan and Ronnie:
Interesting comments.
I remember playing it last year when the entire course was soaked from a May rain yet the greens were rock hard...apparently due to their new sub-air system. If I remember correctly the big reason why Cog didn't get the 2003 Open was that during the 1997 US Am they got a ton of rain and the greens didn't drain at all, turning them into mush. I figured the sub-air was a drastic measure to please the USGA. However, I felt it played a bit goofy because to me the entire course is "aerial" yet approach shots needed to hit on the front or middle of the green in order to have a putt on the next shot.
Like I said before other than maybe #1, #6, and #8 the back nine is very so-so for me, lots of back and forth holes, same downhill tee shot to an uphill greensite. The back nine IMO is pretty fun and uses the better half of the property pretty darn well. #11-14 are all solid, and #16 is probably the best hole on the course if #13 isn't. #18 is just goofy hard now if you think of playing it as a 500 yard par-4 with a sharp dogleg as I thought it was hard enough before!
Ronnie, interesting that you said you thought the course was a ghost town. I suppose their problem may be that at $150+ they have alienated the core Chicago golfer looking for more of the high end/corporate/tourist set, but at the same time the facilities there are a bit outdated, the course isn't always in perfect shape, and Lemont is in the middle of nowhere and takes forever to get to from the Loop.
-
It's really sad to hear all of this. While I never met the younger Jemsek's, I admired and respect Old Joe. He loved Dubbs and rightfully so, back before the tour made it theirs.
From all the negative comments, assuming they translate to the bottom line....
Will this be the last course Rees gets to "spruce up" for powers that be?
-
It's really sad to hear all of this. While I never met the younger Jemsek's, I admired and respect Old Joe. He loved Dubbs and rightfully so, back before the tour made it theirs.
From all the negative comments, assuming they translate to the bottom line....
Will this be the last course Rees gets to "spruce up" for powers that be?
I don't think Rees did abad job considering what he had to work with beforehand. He made it much better in my mind.
Sometimes it doesn't matter how many times you polish and wax your pinto...it'll never be a mustang. :)
-
Adam,
Agree that the Jemsek's have been the lifeblood of Chicago public golf. The 2 main problems, aside from the GCA criticism above, are that the economy currently doesn't allow for very many corporate golf outings at $155/head and Erin Hills beat them out of the Open race following the city's last minute refusal to cover additional security costs at the Open at Olympia. On the flip side, I think they have gotten a significant number of regular tee-time players who dropped out of their even more expensive private clubs...25 rounds at $155 seems like a bargain compared to $10,000 annual dues.....
-
Sven, #5 is no longer a par-5. It's now a brutally difficult par-4 for those of us who don't hit it very far.
Certainly the $155 greens fee has reduced the amount of play, but for the past 8 or 9 years it has always been pretty easy to get a tee time on Dubs. They correctly foresaw the market a few years back when they tried to eliminate my group that had 5, then 4, then 3 prime tee times on Saturday morning. Now, many of the weekend permanent tee times play the complete rotation of four courses, and thus the big ticket Dubsdread is only once per month.
It's still fun, however, to go out and struggle your away around Dubs, and then watch the guys with their names on their bags just absolutely eat it up. Any way you look at it, those guys are indeed good.
-
Sven, #5 is no longer a par-5. It's now a brutally difficult par-4 for those of us who don't hit it very far.
Depends on the tees you play. From the Combo tees I believe its a par 5, it may be a 4 from the cranks.
-
I'm the type that will pay almost anything to play a course once. That said, I've played Dubs probably 30-35 times, including 7-8 times since the renovation. It's definitely worth hitting if you're in town.
Post-renovation, it's more difficult than it was before, but not much more difficult (it was no pushover before). I think it's a course where (depending on your level of ability) par isn't that hard, but it can be very hard to make birdie. 12 is a good example. There are some pin positions that are completely inaccessible, but it's not that hard to hit it in the middle of the green and make par from there.
I played it on Sunday and it was getting pretty burned out in some areas, but I think they'll have in shape in time for the BMW. The greens mark up surprisingly easy, and for a high end course, it seems to get a ton of player who have absolutely no clue that they're supposed to repair their ball marks. The bunkering is much tougher than it was before, but honestly, if you hit the ball at a bunker, you better hope it goes in. After Rees got done with it, you are MUCH worse off if you end up in the long grass sloping down into the bunker. Greens fees include cart, but I usually walk it, and it's a pretty tough walk. Probably the toughest walk of any public course in Chicago.
I'd disagree with Pat about the Glen Club (I think it's highly overrated), but if you're looking for other public courses in Chicagoland, I'd suggest Pine Meadow or Cantigny.
As for #5, I'm pretty positive it's a par 4 from all of the tees (for men anyway), but it's a really difficult par 4. It's long and uphill, and you can't bounce a 3-wood on to the green because of the big front bunker. It has a pretty generous fairway, but the second shot is brutal.
-
The fairways are generally good. Some of the green run offs are nearly dead - likely due to standing water.
I might be misinterpreting you, but the deadest spots on the greens last weekend were the high points around the edges, most likely because they can't hold any water and got burned out in the heat. A lot of those areas were plugged. They aren't going to affect play, but if they don't get them in shape, they won't look very good on TV.
-
Pat:
We played all all-the-way back tees yesterday as I was playing with a Tour player who wanted to see the course changes as he just missed the BMW last year. I tend to drive it 20 yards farther than him and we kept commenting to each other - "who are these bunkers made for". He hit driver just short of every one (not that it mattered because he hits it so straight and good) and then hit 5/6 iron into the tough and log par 4s....easy...just like that.
My biggest concern was with the lack of tree removal and bunkering. First off, the fairway bunkering on 7, 10, 13, 17 and 18 is just terrible. That said, the greens were spectacular. Moreso, three of those five holes have huge trees right on the other side of those cavernous bunkers. For instance, on 18 I hit a solid drive that just drew a little too much. So - I had about 205 in. First off, the bunker felt like it was 10 feet deep (why, on a 500 yard hole such a bunker is needed is beyond me but it is what it is). But second, upon getting in the bunker, a 60 year old Oak is right between my ball and any part of the hole (which is surrounded by water). Now, I would think that on such a hole, you would want to temp a player into attempting a 5 iron out of there to a water surrounded green....but nope, they left the tree. So, I punch out wedge to 50 yards, chipped it to 5 feet and made par. Just boring golf in my opinion.
I am willing to forgive the conditioning as this summer has been horrible for us. My course is suffering a lot as well. Finally, I found the greenside bunkering to be total overkill as well. It looked nice to the eye but the locations of thses traps were ridiculous. Long and short, it felt to me that they just stuck as many bunkers around greens as possible to make it "harder" and more visually appealing - and it didn't work on either attempt.
Again, I will go ther again and play different tees and enjoy it just like I did yesterday. But, it's boring golf...more boring than Torrey Pine...another place that I would play again but not lose sleep the night before in the anticipation of playing it.
-
Bill:
No, I saw the same burn-outs that you did but I am talking about the run offs on some of the greens. For instance, the 6th hole run off was mush - almost totally dead. I assume it's due to standing water in the area as I didn't see a drain and I know they've been whalloped with rain.
It was also quite clear that Rees (or whomever) really tried holding onto some trees. The greens that were suffering were clearly over-treed and had no circulation.
And finally - why in the hell did they plant 5-7 trees on the left side of 16? That was a great view of a really neat marsh. I don't get that at all.
-
Jud. I thought Tiger's 62 had more to do with them not getting the open than the typical payola one expects in our major cities. Before the work I postulated that by shrinking the DZ's plays right into the elite players comfort zone. Add the fact that they apparently have ruined the experience for the less skilled and violla you have no Reeson to hire this type of work, anywhere.
-
Ryan
Can we get any hints to who the tour player was? Also you said the fairway bunkering seems to be out of play for you on the back tees. How far do you hit driver and how far in front of you were those bunkers?
-
It was my college roommate, DA Points. I would have landed in the back side or just short of each bunker. DA was about 3-5 yards behind most of them. That said, the fairways were terribly soft...with drives rolling less than a yard. So that probably had something to do with it as well.
-
I was at the Pro-Am at Dubs yesterday. The greens are terrible. Our pro's caddy said he thought they were the worst greens they played all year. Lots of "no grass" spots, bumpy, slow, inconsistent, some firm, some mushy. Looks like there were areas that had been resodded fairly recently. The 13th was the worst. It would be an embarrasment for a $40 muni.
I don't understand how with all the money that was spent on new greens and the installation of sub-air, how greens could be this bad. Sure the weather has been tough, but there are plenty of courses in the Chicago area whose greens are perfect. What's wrong?
-
I was at the Pro-Am at Dubs yesterday. The greens are terrible. Our pro's caddy said he thought they were the worst greens they played all year. Lots of "no grass" spots, bumpy, slow, inconsistent, some firm, some mushy. Looks like there were areas that had been resodded fairly recently. The 13th was the worst. It would be an embarrasment for a $40 muni.
I don't understand how with all the money that was spent on new greens and the installation of sub-air, how greens could be this bad. Sure the weather has been tough, but there are plenty of courses in the Chicago area whose greens are perfect. What's wrong?
They have been pretty bad all summer. Supposedly they were awful on the Sunday before Labor Day weekend. Sounds like they weren't able to get them in shape over the week and a half the course was closed before the BMW. My guess is they get alot of players that have never heard of a repairing a ball mark.
-
My guess is they get alot of players that have never heard of a repairing a ball mark.
Sven:
Cog Hill's late-summer/early fall rate is $155; that's a pretty steep price, likely to draw only serious golfers. You really think the crowd that seeks out #4 doesn't know how to repair a ball mark?
-
Unless they were playing with bowling balls, the damage I saw wasn't from ball marks.
-
That's too bad about the greens.
Looking back, perhaps moving the BMW to cities other than Chicago every other year may of been the smart move. When's the next time it leaves? 2012 for Crooked Stick?
-
My guess is they get alot of players that have never heard of a repairing a ball mark.
Sven:
Cog Hill's late-summer/early fall rate is $155; that's a pretty steep price, likely to draw only serious golfers. You really think the crowd that seeks out #4 doesn't know how to repair a ball mark?
Having played there 7 or 8 times this summer, absolutely yes. Even with a 7:50 tee time, the greens would be peppered with unrepaired ball marks from the groups in front of us. Add in the softer conditions this summer and its a recipe for disaster.
I'd venture that Cog gets quite a few semi-serious golfers looking to say they played a tour stop who don't give a crap about taking care of the course. In addition to the ballmarks, lack of bunker raking and divot replacement/fill are also quite evident.
As Paul indicated, the ballmarks probably aren't the big issue. They missed the mark this year on taking care of their greens, and the weather certainly didn't help. As a muni, they probably don't have the luxury of shutting down the course on the days when play will do the most damage.
-
yowsa..stories like this about the greens cant help any chance of getting an Open there
-
yowsa..stories like this about the greens cant help any chance of getting an Open there
It's too bad but you're probably right.
-
I haven't been to Dubs as much this year as in the past. Over Memorial Day weekend the greens were just okay, grass was fine but could've used a couple of days of rolling. On the 1st of July for our Weekly Challenge tournament they were excellent, but not so much a month later. A buddy of mine who has a tee time on Sundays has stopped playing in the past three weeks because the greens have been so bad, and his group may be moving to Cantigny next year. . .
They spent a ton of $$ on the new sub-air system for their greens. Wasn't this technology installed for the purpose of eliminating some of the vagaries of hot Chicago summers and cold springs and falls? As it turns out, they's have been much better off this year playing the tournament during their old slot over the 4th of July. . . maybe the FedUp Cup will fade away and we can get back our Western Open???
-
Is there anyone on here who can argue for the route ownership has taken?
This was abad idea from it's inception.
Chicago deserves to have a venue that is both capable of holding a championship and is imspiring to play. Cog Hill number 4 may suffice on the former, but, seriously misses the mark on the latter.
I still say they should blow up the whole property and start fresh with two GREAT courses. Lord knows there's some great ground to create as much.
-
My how easy it is to spend other people's money on this dg. Let me get your point Adam. Frank Jemsek spent $5 million dollars, hiring the "Open Doctor" to renovate his course, did it in one season rather than a few holes at a time (thereby closing the course and getting no revenue from the principal source of income for an entire season+), and now you want him to shutter all four of his courses and create two that fit your idea of greatness??? I'm wondering how "inspiring" it was for the pros at Torrey Pines playing that golf course from all the way back. I'm thinking not so much.
I don't know why the greens are in such bad shape this week -- we've certainly seen enough threads on here this summer about the extreme weather conditions across the U.S. and their effect on golf courses. And I would agree with Sven that the character of the Dubs permanent tee time holder has changed. In the past the course was filled with groups that played Dubs every week. Now, for the most part #4 is part of a rotation. It's hard to find groups who are willing/able to shell out $155/week every week. They're now apparently encouraging the groups who formerly rotated 1-3 to add Dubs to their rotation, and some of those folks apparently aren't that aware of their impact on the course. I'm sure a lot of them have no idea that they even make a ball mark, let alone have an ability to repair one. . . But in terms of capability of hosting a championship, I still believe that Dubs is the choice in Chicago, and that it's too bad the USGA does not agree.
-
I think Jones did a pretty good job of making the course tougher for everyday play, but it sure doesn't seem to have affected the pros much. They beat up the course the last time they played there and I wouldn't be surprised if they get in the mid teens under par this week as well. Conditioning wise, Dubsdread has always left something to be desired, if only because of the amount and caliber of play that it gets. The superintendent is a nice man, but he sure does seem to favor wet and green over anything else. As for this year, there are a great many golf courses hereabouts in pretty pathetic shape because of the heat, humidity and enormous rain dumps that we got in July and August, so it's no surprise that Cog is hurting.
On the subject of blowing up the other three and just building one other great course, that would be a fun concept, to be sure, but methinks it'd be a poor business model. Two of the other three courses (#1 and #3) are incredibly mundane and it would be a nice site to build a golf course, but I don't think they'd fill the tee sheet at the price they'd have to charge.
-
So far today in the first round of the Western Open (!), the course is averaging just over par (71.131). Matt Kuchar led the morning crowd with a 7-under 64, Ryan Moore following with a 6-under 65, including an inward 29, a Western and Dubs back nine record, with birdies on seven of the last holes, and the last five.
There is next to no wind, the pin placements are generally moderate, and today's distance of 7,463 yards.
-
So far today in the first round of the Western Open (!), the course is averaging just over par (71.131). Matt Kuchar led the morning crowd with a 7-under 64, Ryan Moore following with a 6-under 65, including an inward 29, a Western and Dubs back nine record, with birdies on seven of the last holes, and the last five.
There is next to no wind, the pin placements are generally moderate, and today's distance of 7,463 yards.
at least someone is struggling..TW is 3 over thru 8
-
The course wasn't that good before the renovation and it is worse since the renovation. Played there 3 weeks ago and wasn't impressed at all. Every single green site is surrounded by bunkers. How boring.... And the conditioning is terrible for $150/round.
A real embarassment for Chicago golf. There are multiple public courses better than Cog Hill (Harborside, Glen, Blackhawk, etc.) let alone dozens of privates. Why do we insist on keep building this mediocrity up? And, it sits on a great piece of property!
-
"The superintendent is a nice man,.."
Maybe he should be more of a prick.
-
There are multiple public courses better than Cog Hill (Harborside, Glen, Blackhawk, etc.) let alone dozens of privates.
A couple of questions:
1. Where is Blackhawk? If you mean Thunderhawk, it may be a fun course for a duffer like me, but the pros would eat if for lunch.
2. Are you serious with the Harborside > Cog comment? That is ludicrous.
The Glen Club hosted a Nationwide Event for a while, its probably the only other public option around Chicago that could even consider hosting a PGA Event.
-
Not only did the Glen Club host a Nationwide Tour event, but those guys absolutely tore it apart. You think Dubs plays easy for these guys? I watched a guy, not even someone way up the money list who ended up getting his card, just a guy (so anonymous I can't even recall his name) putt like a jerk and shoot 63 at the Glen. Of course everybody's probably putting like a jerk at Dubs if the greens are in bad shape. Too bad. The Jemseks have done a lot for us public course golfers. . .
-
Mark, IMO, You can disagree with me all you want. Wasting 5 million is pretty sad. Not to mention the loss of revenue, and for what? A tougher course? Tough, being arguable since Tiger's 62. Giving the pros clearer more finite areas to play to, makes it easier for them. It plays right into their wheelhouse. All they needed to do to re-toughen Dubbs was to put back that soft silica sand from Green Lake Wisconsin, Joe was so proud of.
As has been stated above, making it tougher for the few public types, that are willing to shell out a days wages to play there, and have their head handed to them, is the bad business model. I feel this way after having known Joe and how proud he was of Dubbs and what a smart conscientious business man he was. Back in the day $54 was steep, but it was worth it. Joe used to joke 'The only way to break 100 at Dubbs was at the Bar".
The information available about golf course architecture has changed so much over the last 12-15 years. Frank's decision to hire the open doctor, was a desperate attempt to impress the USGA. He should've been on top of the changing trends in architecture, showed some insight and made a better decision for his families business, than the one he did. That's my opinion, not spending his money.
-
When watching on TV today I noticed a lot of burnt out or dead spots on the greens and in the rough around the greens and bunkers. Its a shame how the heat has damaged some of these courses.
-
Mike,
Are you still planning on playing Dubs later this month?
Jim
-
Tiger said today "Guys arent going low at this place because the greens arent good enough to go low"..ouch
-
Sven:
Cog Hill's late-summer/early fall rate is $155; that's a pretty steep price, likely to draw only serious golfers. You really think the crowd that seeks out #4 doesn't know how to repair a ball mark?
I used to think the same thing, but I'm shocked at how many huge, obvious ball marks I see every time I play there. Even worse, they're from all directions, so there's some real chops that play there. And beyond being poor golfers, they display poor etiquette.
As for the greens in general, I think the weather, combined with the lack of maturity is the real culprit. If we had this weather after four or five years of growth, they would have had ample opportunity to get them in shape for the tournament. But those greens are still young, and this has been a rough summer. Maybe I'm wrong and they'll still have this problem in a few years, but they look, feel, and play like they just haven't developed a great root system yet.
Re: the comments about the Glen Club, I think it's the most overrated course in Chicago. I'm always surprised when I see it so high on ratings lists for the state. It's as if people just rank courses based on the greens fee. Dubs is expensive, but you can make an argument that it's worth it occasionally (which is why I still play it four or five times per year). I paid the spring rate for the Glen Club once, and I feel like I overpaid. If I never go back, I won't be disappointed.
Thunderhawk is fun to play, but way too goofy for professionals. Just think of how easy 7, 8, 11, and 13 would be for those guys.
-
Not only did the Glen Club host a Nationwide Tour event, but those guys absolutely tore it apart. You think Dubs plays easy for these guys? I watched a guy, not even someone way up the money list who ended up getting his card, just a guy (so anonymous I can't even recall his name) putt like a jerk and shoot 63 at the Glen. Of course everybody's probably putting like a jerk at Dubs if the greens are in bad shape. Too bad. The Jemseks have done a lot for us public course golfers. . .
Mark:
In 2006 the Glen Club grew the first cut of rough up to a thick 4" (probably close to what it is at Cog Hill right now) and had the course playing VERY F&F. I know they didn't change the mowing lines at all, they just grew out the rough that sits between the wide fairways and the high "fescue" rough. I wouldn't say they tore it apart with a winning score of -5:
http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/nationwide/leaderboard/2006/270
You might even recognize a few of the names who made the cut :)
Jason Dufner (winner) -5
Matt Kuchar +7 (I actually watched him the Sunday of this tournament...he's come a long way in 4 years!)
Michael Sim +1
Cameron Beckman -2
Jeff Quinney E
Boo Weekley +2
Rickey Barnes +9
Notah Begay +13
Mike Small +5
Granted the next year they shaved the rough and the winner shot -17, but it shows that with a little rough and some firm conditions you can turn the Glen into a decent professional tour stop. (Not saying it's ever going to happen, just that it's possible).
-
When watching on TV today I noticed a lot of burnt out or dead spots on the greens and in the rough around the greens and bunkers. Its a shame how the heat has damaged some of these courses.
I watched about an hour of coverage last night off and on, and in HD I didn't think the course looked that bad. But I suppose in person it could look a little rough compared to some of the other places they've been recently.
-
Tiger said today "Guys arent going low at this place because the greens arent good enough to go low"..ouch
:-X
-
Geoff Shackelford has an item on the greens this morning...Tim CLark said it looked like they staged a shotput contest on the greens....Phil not thrilled about the course either
-
Pat,
No way the rough at Cog is 4" right now. There are some spots in the lower areas on 3 and 7 where it gets heavy, but for most of the course it's 2 1/2-3"
I've been at the Pro-Am in years past when regular country club 10 handicaps could barely advance the ball out of the rough. The course today is pretty tame.
Tiger is dead on. If the greens were worth a shit there would be 10 guys at 65.
-
Sven:
Cog Hill's late-summer/early fall rate is $155; that's a pretty steep price, likely to draw only serious golfers. You really think the crowd that seeks out #4 doesn't know how to repair a ball mark?
Re: the comments about the Glen Club, I think it's the most overrated course in Chicago. I'm always surprised when I see it so high on ratings lists for the state. It's as if people just rank courses based on the greens fee. Dubs is expensive, but you can make an argument that it's worth it occasionally (which is why I still play it four or five times per year). I paid the spring rate for the Glen Club once, and I feel like I overpaid. If I never go back, I won't be disappointed.
Bill:
Obviously, I understand why a golfer would feel a lack of value in the Glen Club's $180+ green fee. Of course there are probably better ways to spend it. But the course and it's management isn't really gunning for the same type of customer as Cog Hill as they are targeting the "business golfer" with an expense account. Business was great a few years ago, with 200+ golfers a day either paying for memberships or the greens fee. I haven't been back in a couple years, but I've heard that isn't the case quite as much anymore.
If you take the greens fee out of the equation, it's a pretty strong golf course. Perfect? No. But there are some really good holes (#2, #4, #6, #8, #9, #10, #12, #14, #15, & #16 being the strongest) and they generally keep it F&F with little rough which makes it play fun.
Cog Hill is a nice facility and I respect everything it's ownership has done for golf in Chicago, but what they've done to #4 is make the course impossible for the average golfer, yet they made it simple enough where the tour pros can "point and shoot."
If money is taken out of the equation, and most on here played the Glen and Cog Hill back to back, I would bet that most would have more fun playing the Glen.
-
Pat,
No way the rough at Cog is 4" right now. There are some spots in the lower areas on 3 and 7 where it gets heavy, but for most of the course it's 2 1/2-3"
I've been at the Pro-Am in years past when regular country club 10 handicaps could barely advance the ball out of the rough. The course today is pretty tame.
Tiger is dead on. If the greens were worth a shit there would be 10 guys at 65.
Thanks for the first hand report Paul. I suppose for as tough as the weather has been for greens in the area this summer, it's been just as hard on the rough.
-
More on the greens starting in the fourth paragraph of my story on the first round:
http://golfinchicago.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/kuchars-64-leads-while-moore-ties-one-on/
In summary: Nobody's happy except the leaders.
-
Cog Hill is a nice facility and I respect everything it's ownership has done for golf in Chicago, but what they've done to #4 is make the course impossible for the average golfer, yet they made it simple enough where the tour pros can "point and shoot."
If money is taken out of the equation, and most on here played the Glen and Cog Hill back to back, I would bet that most would have more fun playing the Glen.
Pat, I'm sure my opinion is largely colored by the hype for the Glen Club not being proportional to my experience there. I thought it was a good course, but no better than 10 or more other courses in Chicagoland. When I played it, I had already played most, if not all of the high end public courses in Chicago. If it had been the first one I'd played, I may have felt differently. Pine Meadow was one of the first "good" courses I played after moving here from L.A., and I was really impressed with the layout and the conditions, and as a result, it's a course I go back to quite a bit (despite the greens being a bit sub-par over the last couple years). Part of that was probably due to the fact that courses are just generally in better condition in Chicago, so it left a good impression on me at the time. And of course, the greens fee at PM, while not cheap, is not exactly exorbitant.
As for Dubs, I think a small part of the fun is playing a course that the PGA Tour pros play, which admittedly is something the Glen Club can't duplicate. I think post-renovation, Dubs is much tougher than before from the same yardage. I want to say the tees I play there now are a bit shorter (maybe 200 yards?) than the tees I used to play, and with that taken into account, I think it's about the same. I'm about a four, and I still consider it a pretty good round when I break 80 out there, but that was also the case before it was renovated. I'm not sure what the changes have meant for a 12-15 handicapper.
-
Pat, I guess I was there the year of less rough. I would say, however, that if you grow 4" rough, narrow the fairways and make the greens hard, just about any golf course can be made difficult. Does the IPGA's website have historical data for their events held at the Glen? Might be a fairer comparison. The section guys are great players, just not on the level of the minor league big kids. Wondering what kind of scores they shot there?
Adam, fair to say that we will have to agree to disagree on the Jemseks' business plan, but your suggestion to blow up the four courses to make two is the kind of thing that non-GCA folks will read and think that we're a bunch of idiots. . .
-
Pat, I guess I was there the year of less rough. I would say, however, that if you grow 4" rough, narrow the fairways and make the greens hard, just about any golf course can be made difficult. Does the IPGA's website have historical data for their events held at the Glen? Might be a fairer comparison. The section guys are great players, just not on the level of the minor league big kids. Wondering what kind of scores they shot there?
Adam, fair to say that we will have to agree to disagree on the Jemseks' business plan, but your suggestion to blow up the four courses to make two is the kind of thing that non-GCA folks will read and think that we're a bunch of idiots. . .
Mark:
Here are the results from the last Illinois Open held at the Glen Club in 2007:
http://ilpga.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/ilpga7/event/ilpga736/contest/1/leaderboard.htm
Mike Small won at -8, and interestingly enough Kevin Streelman (who's playing this week at Cog Hill) came in 3rd at -6. (3 round tournament).
For the Illinois Open (I looped in two at the Glen) the course was in pretty much the same shape it always was, except the greens were a little quicker and they tucked a few pins.
I'm not saying that the Glen is a better course than Cog Hill, or even a better PGA Tour host, only that it could potentially host a Tour event with the right set up.
-
Adam, fair to say that we will have to agree to disagree on the Jemseks' business plan, but your suggestion to blow up the four courses to make two is the kind of thing that non-GCA folks will read and think that we're a bunch of idiots. . .
If that's your way of calling me an idiot, I'll bite. My opinion of having the remaining ground available for a real estate component only sounds stupid, now, because of the timing in the current RE market. My idea was born before the downturn in RE. A savvy player might've predicted it, then change the GCA, and blown those courses up 15 years ago, hired the right architect, and had two world class courses, that could easily have held major championships. Then he'd have sold the RE as the market went up, before finally retracing after the ridiculous levels it reach earlier in this last decade. Besides, I didn't know non gca geeks read this shit, or that my one opinion, could reflect poorly on anything, or anybody, but me. But that's just me!
My point all along has been that ground there in Lemont, is better, than the golf courses that traverse it. You may love Dubbs, but there's always a but, when trying to qualify it as one the country's best courses. That's because it was forced between the courses that already existed and never had any decent flow to it's routing.
-
Adam, fair to say that we will have to agree to disagree on the Jemseks' business plan, but your suggestion to blow up the four courses to make two is the kind of thing that non-GCA folks will read and think that we're a bunch of idiots. . .
If that's your way of calling me an idiot, I'll bite. My opinion of having the remaining ground available for a real estate component only sounds stupid, now, because of the timing in the current RE market. My idea was born before the downturn in RE. A savvy player might've predicted it, then change the GCA, and blown those courses up 15 years ago, hired the right architect, and had two world class courses, that could easily have held major championships. Then he'd have sold the RE as the market went up, before finally retracing after the ridiculous levels it reach earlier in this last decade. Besides, I didn't know non gca geeks read this shit, or that my one opinion, could reflect poorly on anything, or anybody, but me. But that's just me!
My point all along has been that ground there in Lemont, is better, than the golf courses that traverse it. You may love Dubbs, but there's always a but, when trying to qualify it as one the country's best courses. That's because it was forced between the courses that already existed and never had any decent flow to it's routing.
Sounds like the next armchair architect competition. Lucky for Jim Colton the property already has a viable access road and maintenance building.
-
Adam, fair to say that we will have to agree to disagree on the Jemseks' business plan, but your suggestion to blow up the four courses to make two is the kind of thing that non-GCA folks will read and think that we're a bunch of idiots. . .
If that's your way of calling me an idiot, I'll bite. My opinion of having the remaining ground available for a real estate component only sounds stupid, now, because of the timing in the current RE market. My idea was born before the downturn in RE. A savvy player might've predicted it, then change the GCA, and blown those courses up 15 years ago, hired the right architect, and had two world class courses, that could easily have held major championships. Then he'd have sold the RE as the market went up, before finally retracing after the ridiculous levels it reach earlier in this last decade. Besides, I didn't know non gca geeks read this shit, or that my one opinion, could reflect poorly on anything, or anybody, but me. But that's just me!
My point all along has been that ground there in Lemont, is better, than the golf courses that traverse it. You may love Dubbs, but there's always a but, when trying to qualify it as one the country's best courses. That's because it was forced between the courses that already existed and never had any decent flow to it's routing.
Actually, Adam, Dubsdread was largely built on property Joe Jemsek bought specifically for the course, most of it to the east of the original property, and some to the north. As I see the old aerials, only the eighth and ninth holes, 11th tee and second half of the 18th was on land already owned by Jemsek.
And it's Dubs, not Dubbs.
-
I was out there again today. My take; the Rees changes did not improve the course although they arguably made it harder. The Dick Wilson/Joe Lee routing was and is just fine and takes good advantage of the site. It was a very good golf course hampered in its efforts to get a "major" by the tremendous amount of play, the desire to operate at a profit and the need to move players around the course. The changes lengthen the course and add extreme fairway bunkers that are, for want of a better term, formulaic. Not particularly attractive or strategic but they do narrow the landing areas. Putting aside the conditioning issues, there are a number of attempts to creat "greens within greens" through the use of spines running out of bunker capes which have little or no relationship to the surrounding topography. Each "sub-green" has limited contour to allow faster green speeds. The old surfaces were far more natural and attuned to the surrounding terrain but, again, these changes may have been perceived as being consistent with features which the USGA favors. Finally, it is difficult to comment on greenskeeping problems unless one is on site regularly and/or has access to the data. I agree that rebuilding the greens,planting them with A4, and installing subair was done to insure premium conditions even in hot and humid summers. There are a lot of elevated exposed greens but I don't know if they had winter kill related issues. I only know that I heard from any number of the pros and several pro am participants that the greens were very uneven with a lot of bare spots. The fairways are not what they should be either.
Finally, to the extent this has impacted on the reputation of the venue, it is a shame. Regardless of whether one agrees with the decision to make the changes in an effort to get the US Open, the Jemsek family has been great for golf and only deserves good things. Joe, followed by his son Frank, brought quality golf to the public sector without having to add all the bells and whistles of the Country Club for a day operations. In addition, they have been extremely charitable. While I may not agree with all that has been done to the course, I am certain they were done with the best of intentions and I continue to hope the family meets with success.
-
I was out there again today. My take; the Rees changes did not improve the course although they arguably made it harder.
that sums it up perfectly Shel
-
Back before the PGA Tour got their selfish mitts on this course, there was plenty of strategy, mostly due to the nature of the sand in the bunkers. Also, I can cite at least on hole where I learned about strategy, the 15th.
One use to need to drive the ball to the right, so that their second, could find the left side for their approach to this 3 shotter.
Since moving away from Chicago and seeing quality designs elsewhere, the statement that Cog Hill #4 is one of Chicago's bests, may very well be true, but, is a sad reality.
That is so sad. I used to love Cog Hill. I played it about 100 times and enjoyed every round. I won't get to see it again as I'm no longer golfing.
-
The key quote from Frank Jemsek's take on the situation: “I wish they were saying good things about the golf course, but it’s hard to fight the facts. The greens are really badly ball-marked. We’ve had a lot of golf in wet weather.”
The whole story is at:
http://golfinchicago.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/jemsek-on-greens-its-hard-to-fight-the-facts/
-
That is so sad. I used to love Cog Hill. I played it about 100 times and enjoyed every round. I won't get to see it again as I'm no longer golfing.
[/quote]
Cary, Frank Jemsek reminded us today that they had to go away from the old silica sand because it was being made so fine, balls buried almost from their own weight. They had to go to regular sand. It happened to coincide with the arrival of the Western in 1991, but it was going to happen then anyway.
-
The key quote from Frank Jemsek's take on the situation: “I wish they were saying good things about the golf course, but it’s hard to fight the facts. The greens are really badly ball-marked. We’ve had a lot of golf in wet weather.”
The whole story is at:
http://golfinchicago.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/jemsek-on-greens-its-hard-to-fight-the-facts/
perhaps they should have closed it sooner than 10 days prior and/or not allowed as much play during rain??
-
I was out there today and I thought the course looked to be in a lot better shape than when I commented on it 3-4 weeks ago. That said, the comments I was hearing from the players were not flattering at all....which is a shame.
I mostly sat on the 18th hole however and must say, that is one of the poorest 18th holes I have ever seen. Like I previously stated and has been confirmed, 80% of the players can't even drive the ball to the fairway bunkers. And for those who do, it is almost impossible to get to the green from there.
I consider myself a Rees supporter - but his best work clearly wasn't on display during this renovation. It would have been great to see what someone else could have done to this great property.
-
Stewart Cink, normally quite diplomatic, said that on a scale of 0-10 the course is a -3.
-
Stewart Cink, normally quite diplomatic, said that on a scale of 0-10 the course is a -3.
And as it turned out, he said he was echoing the comments of Zach Johnson, who is also usually a see no evil guy.
-
Shel, Thanks for your level headed input. You are right, the routing was/is just fine. Not great, not bad, but fine.
Sven, Thanks for that info. It doesn't stop the cramped feeling the course has/had. I recall enjoying the sequence of 3-8 and 13-16, but, that wasn't enough to make the course great.
As for the above reason the soft silica was removed, it sounds like revisionist history. That sand was always super soft and many balls with lower trajectories, that entered the bunkers on the fly, were sometimes lost. Nothing along the lines of falling in from it's own weight, if a ball had bounced, or rolled, into a bunker. The reason for the removal was part and parcel of not 'embarrassing theses guys' mindset, that still exists today, albeit, not as much. The sand was removed in the fall of the year prior to the tours arrival. We played the course the day the committee was out there making decisions on tweaks for the pros, in October, of that preceding year, and that sand was already gone.
I feel bad for the outcome of the golf courses new look and playability, for the public player in Chicagoland, and for Mr. Jemsek's because of the horrible reviews it's getting this week. They've owned that place forever and as Shel says, have been leaders in raising the bar for public golf in Chicago for a long time.
My hope was to discuss the errors of ways, so others might learn from it, but apparently nobody wants to talk or identify the mistakes, let alone do the dirty work of re-evaluating, and make suggestions to correct it. I wonder if it's because it's a public venue, the majority on GCA don't give a rat's ass?
-
In case anyone is interested in seeing a good amount of post-renovation pictures of Dubsdread that I took last year during a round in May, I posted them on my blog this morning:
http://secondcitygolfer.blogspot.com/2010/09/cog-hill-4-dubsdread.html
-
I consider myself a Rees supporter - but his best work clearly wasn't on display during this renovation. It would have been great to see what someone else could have done to this great property.
Ryan:
I thought this was an interesting point.
I would consider myself a Rees fan as well on the whole. While many on here bash him to no end, he has done some good renovation/redesign work of classic courses over his career. Obviously he's done a lot of work on your club over the last 10 years or so, but the renovation job of his I have had the most experience with is bellerive in St. Louis. I've probably played it 15-20 times since he renovated the course in 2006 (ironically right before he won the job at Cog Hill). There he did a very fine job... "cleaning" up the course, enhancing two of the weaker holes there, lengthening the holes with new back tees, moving and deepening bunkers....however all while keeping the course's identity together.
For some reason I get the feeling that at Cog Hill the ownership gave him full reign over the course in a big push to get the Open...and he took that freedom too far. Perhaps at a private club with their committees force Jones to be more restrained, which might be a good thing.
-
Pat, Frank Jemsek said he vetoed some of Rees Jones' plans to make the bunkers even more deep than they are, saying he wanted to make sure his customers who got into them could also get out. As for the greens, I don't believe there were any vetos used.
Here's the latest on my golf website, from superintendent Ken Lapp earlier today:
http://golfinchicago.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/lapp-lack-of-roots-cause-of-dubsdreads-trouble/
Said Lapp: “We had rain, heat, then more rain, and then it was 95 degrees. When you get all that rain early in the spring, you lose your roots.”
-
Tim
It does not look like I am going to play Cog Hill. Right now it looks like I will be playing Medinah #3, Blue Mound and Olympia Fields (North) on my trip to Chicago. My pro suggested that I play Blue Mound on Sept 22 and after finding out Blue Mound is a Raynor I did not want to pass up the chance.
-
As I recall there were some very heavy rains in localized areas around Chicago followed by heat in the mid-90's. In places it rained over 5 inches right? I can understand how that would have set the greens back.
I think this is one of those situations where you give the Jemsek family and the superintendent a break. I don't think it is fair to judge the architect too severely on this either. If we had a summer like last summer we might all be talking about how we are going to get our tickets for a US Open at Cog Hill.
-
As I recall there were some very heavy rains in localized areas around Chicago followed by heat in the mid-90's. In places it rained over 5 inches right? I can understand how that would have set the greens back.
Again, it's been an awful summer for golf courses here. But I think that's doubly so for Dubs because the greens are so young. Give those greens five-six years of normal/good growing seasons, and they could weather a bad summer. Those greens are only a year or two old. Their youth, coupled with the bad weather, has been very problematic. Cantigny's greens, for example, are still pretty good. Not overly fast, but they're rolling true, and they're in good shape for the most part, with a couple exceptions (#2 Lakeside isn't all that great). Mature greens can survive this weather. Dubs' greens are not mature.
-
Bill and Bradley:
If new construction is the excuse, given what I've seen this year, I would expect the fairways to be the first to go. My course had a redo a la Cog Hill and the fairways were the only part of the course to show significant stress as the roots were not able to take hold before the rains and scorching heat. The greens held up just fine due to the high sand content, drainage and sub-air flexibility. That is just our place and I get that every place is different...but, if you look around Chicago this summer, the greens are mostly holding up (unless there is a lot of poa) but the fairways are getting pulverized. Seems to be the other way around at Cog FWIW.
-
Is the golf course and it's reception this year a big enough wreck that the PGA Tour might look into other options for the Tournament? Will the Tour just let it blow over as long as the Tournament is generating revenue or with the player's dislike of the current course be hard to ignore?
-
I will say this, the course, for better or worse, seems to have found a way to separate the best from the rest. Kucher, Johnson, Moore...all have been competitors all year long.
-
I think the course looks very fun/challenging. I currently play on a Dick Wilson course and I saw a lot of similarities.
-
Mike,
I'm not sure "fun" is the operative word post-renovation, even for very strong players...
-
Bill and Bradley:
If new construction is the excuse, given what I've seen this year, I would expect the fairways to be the first to go.
I might be missing your point, but I'm pretty sure the fairways were not replanted. That grass has been there for a long time. The greens are young, but the fairways and rough are not.
-
I think the course looks very fun/challenging. I currently play on a Dick Wilson course and I saw a lot of similarities.
Mike,
I had the chance to play your Dick Wilson course not long before I played Cog Hill. There's no comparison--given another ten rounds I'd play your course 9-1 minimum. Cog Hill is definitely more difficult, but the terrain isn't as interesting overall (although good in spots) and the design is much more based on execution than anything else.
-
Andy
Since you have played both did you see many similarities?
-
Mike,
In all honesty, not as much as I would have expected. The land itself is fairly different, your course has a lot more dramatic changes in elevation. Cog Hill has that a little bit on the back nine, but nothing as extreme as the 3rd or 12th holes at your course. Cog Hill feels fairly narrow because of the deep bunkering that's prevelent on the sides of fairways--if you end up in those things you're essentially pitching out. The bunkering as a whole is totally different. Cog Hill looks like the bunkering on Rees Jones original designs in terms of shapes--you wouldn't recognize it as Dick Wilson at all. Your course is just a lot more fun as well.
-
I was out there this weekend and I did notice some issues with the greens, but it wasn't a horror show by any means. Overall, the course was in good condition, given the weather problems we've had this year in Chicago.
As for the Rees work, he took a hard course (it's not called Dubsdread because it's overly customer friendly, for Chrissakes) and made it five or six shots harder. Some of the holes look better because of tree removal and the look of the bunkering, but it's mostly just more difficult because of the placement of the bunkers and the reconfiguration of the greens. I was never that big of a fan of Dubs, because it fell into the needlessly penal category and I'm still not a big fan, but there's no doubt that the architect did what the owner wanted. The owner thought that the USGA needed the course to be longer and harder and snarlier in its defense of par in order to merit a US Open. I think it's fair to say in hindsight that they never had a shot, because the USGA had fallen in love with the blank canvas in Wisconsin much in the same way they fell in love with Chambers Bay.
Now the public golfer is left with a course that is just too punishing to merit the greens fees and one that is apparently not worthy of the compliments of the pampered glass, the One Tanned Hand crowd on the PGA Tour.
P.S. I'll add to my list of disagreements with Adam Clayman his suggestion that the soft silica sand should reappear. That sand was a fricking travesty. The only way to play with that sand was to "rake and roll", which is another travesty in itself.
-
Terry,
I wonder if they've now lost both ways. Not only have they lost their Open bid, but they may have turned their core business of local golfers away as well. After one post-renovation round I doubt a lot of average players will pony up $155 for repeat punishment. Before the reno, it was at least possible to enjoy onesself if you were hitting the ball well, now it's simply beyond reach for most of us.
-
Terry,
I wonder if they've now lost both ways. Not only have they lost their Open bid, but they may have turned their core business of local golfers away as well. After one post-renovation round I doubt a lot of average players will pony up $155 for repeat punishment. Before the reno, it was at least possible to enjoy onesself if you were hitting the ball well, now it's simply beyond reach for most of us.
I think they probably have lost both ways. I'll say this: there's no way that they will ever get a US Open and if the players complaints about the golf course gain any traction with the tour, they may well lose the tour stop as well. There are better venues in Chicago than Cog Hill, especially for an event that benefits the Evans Scholars Foundation. Cog Hill has never sent a kid to college.
-
Terry,
I wonder if they've now lost both ways. Not only have they lost their Open bid, but they may have turned their core business of local golfers away as well. After one post-renovation round I doubt a lot of average players will pony up $155 for repeat punishment. Before the reno, it was at least possible to enjoy onesself if you were hitting the ball well, now it's simply beyond reach for most of us.
I think they probably have lost both ways. I'll say this: there's no way that they will ever get a US Open and if the players complaints about the golf course gain any traction with the tour, they may well lose the tour stop as well. There are better venues in Chicago than Cog Hill, especially for an event that benefits the Evans Scholars Foundation. Cog Hill has never sent a kid to college.
Terry:
It seems they have sent at least one through the Evans program:
http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/lemont/sports/x272786739/Caddying-turns-shy-guy-into-Evans-Scholar
Considering they don't have a big caddy program to begin with at Cog Hill that's not that bad. But I agree there are clubs with great golf courses that I'm sure have sent way more kids to college through the program.
After this week they need one or two years of perfect conditions and the players raving about the golf course before they can even begin to talk about the Open again. Sure, the USGA could probably make it work if they had to, but there are better options (based on the GCA alone).
-
Currently, there are over 800 kids in college on the Evans scholarship. More than 10,000 others have already gotten a free education because of the Evans. 99.9% of the caddies work at private clubs, where the members fund the program with their donations. For some reason, some people in positions of authority think that it makes more sense for a tournament like this to be held at a public golf course, which strikes me as counterintuitive, because places like Cog Hill absolutely depend upon cart revenue to function. I know they've attempted to get a caddie program going and I'm sure that a handful of Cog Hill caddies have gotten the scholarship, but there's no comparison when you look at what private club members have done to fund the program. I'd like to see this tournament played at a private club with a tradition of backing the Evans Scholars Foundation and one that is clearly superior to Cog Hill. As I said before, there are courses that would qualify on both counts here in Chicago and elsewhere.
-
Well, after listening to all the players complain about the course....to me it sounds like the perfect US Open venue.
And if there's one silver lining in this black cloud, it's that the tournament got moved into the playoffs. If it were still a tournament in July that players could skip without any repercussions, it sure sounds from their comments that they would - in droves.
That's probably a correct assessment. I know of one highly ranked player (who will remain nameless) that can't stand the course and is only at the tournament because it's a playoff event.
-
Currently, there are over 800 kids in college on the Evans scholarship. More than 10,000 others have already gotten a free education because of the Evans. 99.9% of the caddies work at private clubs, where the members fund the program with their donations. For some reason, some people in positions of authority think that it makes more sense for a tournament like this to be held at a public golf course, which strikes me as counterintuitive, because places like Cog Hill absolutely depend upon cart revenue to function. I know they've attempted to get a caddie program going and I'm sure that a handful of Cog Hill caddies have gotten the scholarship, but there's no comparison when you look at what private club members have done to fund the program. I'd like to see this tournament played at a private club with a tradition of backing the Evans Scholars Foundation and one that is clearly superior to Cog Hill. As I said before, there are courses that would qualify on both counts here in Chicago and elsewhere.
I agree with you on every point above and wasn't trying to prove you wrong with my link, I was just surprised at first to read your post where you said Cog Hill had never sent anyone to college.
-
From Ed Sherman's Chicago Golf Blog:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/section/blogs?blogID=business-of-sports&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3af5555513-c950-4657-a93a-80db16fdf4adPost%3afeb90696-2cbe-4d6c-993a-cc31d81a22b0&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com
"Last week, Mr. Kaczkowski said the WGA and BMW were looking at the 2010 and 2011 events at Cog Hill to determine the future of the tournament in Chicago. After last week, you'd have to say the local golf community and Cog Hill better mount quite a rally in 2011."
-
Those are some tough comments by Sherman in his blog, but, regrettably, there's a factual basis for all of it. The players didn't like the conditioning of the course and they seemed liberated by the ability to bash Rees Jones in a non-US Open forum. The good old days of "we love playing at this public golf course" seem to be by the wayside, for a number of reasons. I'm sure that the WGA and the PGA will figure something out rather soon, but there are a lot of factors involved, including the future of the Fed-Ex Cup. If this tournament were moved back to its 4th of July date, there wouldn't be any more carping about low attendance, that's for sure, but I don't know that any of the pros are going to fall in love with the punitive layout any time soon.
-
Would Olympia Fields have any interest in hosting the event every other year? The North course is so great and, after the unfair bashing it got in 2003, I think it deserves a second look.
-
Would Olympia Fields have any interest in hosting the event every other year? The North course is so great and, after the unfair bashing it got in 2003, I think it deserves a second look.
I agree that OFCC would be a neat place to hold the event, they sure have the course for it! (Plus they have the train station on property).
But so much goes into bringing a tournament of this size to a club who knows if the membership would be up for it.
-
Would Olympia Fields have any interest in hosting the event every other year? The North course is so great and, after the unfair bashing it got in 2003, I think it deserves a second look.
I agree that OFCC would be a neat place to hold the event, they sure have the course for it! (Plus they have the train station on property).
But so much goes into bringing a tournament of this size to a club who knows if the membership would be up for it.
It would have this uneducated non-voting member's vote ;D
-
A no-brainer.
-
Has Butler National opened its membership to women, if so would the membership of Butler welcome back the Western Open?
-
Nope. Still all-male.